CDZ SAT losing favor in Massachusetts schools.

[oldsoul]

You brought race into a non-racial discussion, in my book, that means that race is in the forefront of your mind all the time, therefore, making you a racist. It goes both ways.

Thats a stretch and your arms are not long enough. The posters asked if the SAT was racist. Nowhere in the thread was that accusation leveled.

Why do you insult people who disagree with you? Is it because you cannot defend your position? If you can defend it, then defend it. If you can't, stop saying it.
Sooo, do you stand by your statement in the second post of this thread, or do you retract it?

I didnt insult anyone. He replied to thread and included me in his beside the point post. If you have an issue with what I said to him you need to toughen up and deal with it.

Of course I stand by my post. Why would you ask such a silly question?

Then it is you who brought race into it.

How does that make the SAT racist? Did you forget the point?

No, I did not forget the point. Let me refresh your memory.

Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent.

As he first reponse to the OP, how does this not bring race into it?

And I can't help but notice that you haven't denied that race is always in the forefront of your mind and thinking. Interesting, very interesting.

I also find it interesting that you portray yourself as an expert on how all wealthy people think.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats a stretch and your arms are not long enough. The posters asked if the SAT was racist. Nowhere in the thread was that accusation leveled.

Why do you insult people who disagree with you? Is it because you cannot defend your position? If you can defend it, then defend it. If you can't, stop saying it.
Sooo, do you stand by your statement in the second post of this thread, or do you retract it?

I didnt insult anyone. He replied to thread and included me in his beside the point post. If you have an issue with what I said to him you need to toughen up and deal with it.

Of course I stand by my post. Why would you ask such a silly question?

Then it is you who brought race into it.

How does that make the SAT racist? Did you forget the point?

No, I did not forget the point. Let me refresh your memory.

Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent.

As he first reponse to the OP, how does this not bring race into it?

And I can't help but notice that you haven't denied that race is always in the forefront of your mind and thinking. Interesting, very interesting.

I also find it interesting that you portray yourself as an expert on how all wealthy people think.

If you didnt forget the point then you are not making sense. He offered a strawman that the SAT was racist. Please explain how me saying the SAT effect was wearing off on whites with inferiority complexes means the SAT is racist. What logic are you using to arrive at that conclusion?

Why would I deny race was always forefront in my mind? I'm not concerned with anyones opinion of me since its none of my business.

I cant help that you think I'm an expert. Weird how people claim things no one ever said.

 

[oldsoul]

Its a money making racket that is losing its influence since it scores were closely tied to income levels. Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent

The very next post:

The SAT is racist?

I don't have time for this, good day.

 

[Asclepias]

Its a money making racket that is losing its influence since it scores were closely tied to income levels. Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent

The very next post:

The SAT is racist?

I don't have time for this, good day.

There is not enough time in the world to make that connection. Please explain your logic. If not have a good day.

 

[Alex.]

You wanna live with me and have me support you?

Give it a rest. You can barely support yourself. Thats why you keep trying to convince me you are rich.

And why, pray tell, are you sooo sure he's lying?

He was simply explaining that he has come from nothing and made something of himself. Why do you find that so threatening?

Because wealthy people dont attempt to convince people they are wealthy. If you were wealthy you would know that.

I dont find it threatening. It was needless and had nothing to do with the point that lots of people cant afford to spend $749 on some course to prepare them for some test that doesnt mean anything.

Are you wealthy? And how do you know what my finacial status is, based solely on a post? This is typical of leftists, Make assumptions, then present them as fact.

Besides, I read it as the cost of a college course. Maybe I am wrong. Alex. could you clarify please?

Thats a matter of perspective. I do know a lot of wealthy people and they never try to convince me they are wealthy.

Your thought processes betray your lack of wealth.

See you dont even know what you are talking about. Another hint of your financial status. We were talking about the cost of a course prepping kids for the SAT.

You are doing this circle jerk all by yourself. I made a statement hard work=financial success. No convincing necessary you are just the opposite no work=financial dependence/disbelief in hard work =financial success

 

[MarathonMike]

So what are you all proposing? Dump the SAT and the ACT? I am assuming you are equally unhappy with the ACT. In lieu of what? You can't just use GPAs because there is no consistency at all from high school to high school. My two sons attended two different high schools in the same school district and the difference between the two schools was enormous. There were kids that transferred from my younger son's school to my older son's school because they were struggling to make C's. At my older son's school they were making A's. What would replace a standardized test for college admissions people to evaluate candidates? And PULEEEZE do not run off into the weeds commenting on how my older son must be dumber than my younger one. He's a math major now in college doing well, thank you.

 

[JQPublic1]

So what are you all proposing? Dump the SAT and the ACT? I am assuming you are equally unhappy with the ACT. In lieu of what? You can't just use GPAs because there is no consistency at all from high school to high school. My two sons attended two different high schools in the same school district and the difference between the two schools was enormous. There were kids that transferred from my younger son's school to my older son's school because they were struggling to make C's. At my older son's school they were making A's. What would replace a standardized test for college admissions people to evaluate candidates? And PULEEEZE do not run off into the weeds commenting on how my older son must be dumber than my younger one. He's a math major now in college doing well, thank you.

When I posted the op I was just reporting. After reading the link, though, I see that the reasoning behind many colleges dropping both the SAT and the ACT is sound. You, apparently erroneously, think of the tests as a "qualification" standard to weed out the" qualified"from the "unqualified."
The researchers determined that SAT scores are NOT a predictor of how well students will do in college. Students who did not submit SAT scores did just as well as those who did. All the SAT did was to act as a pseudo-qualifier.
Realistically though, I think people from Asia and India and Africa were mastering the SAT and ACT at rates far greater than their representation in the US population. The SAT and the ACT is becoming restrictive for more and more white students who have to compete on a structured test with the best from around the world. The solution? Dump it!

 

[Asclepias]

So what are you all proposing? Dump the SAT and the ACT? I am assuming you are equally unhappy with the ACT. In lieu of what? You can't just use GPAs because there is no consistency at all from high school to high school. My two sons attended two different high schools in the same school district and the difference between the two schools was enormous. There were kids that transferred from my younger son's school to my older son's school because they were struggling to make C's. At my older son's school they were making A's. What would replace a standardized test for college admissions people to evaluate candidates? And PULEEEZE do not run off into the weeds commenting on how my older son must be dumber than my younger one. He's a math major now in college doing well, thank you.

Thats precisely where this is going. Did you not read the link? Colleges are no longer requiring the SAT at all or stopped weighing it as heavily in their determination in who they accept specifically because it benefits wealthy families more.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Asclepias]

View attachment 54104

Greeks learned from Egyptians. We should be teaching egyptian concepts and languages instead of learning from the students of the real masters of knowledge.

 

[320 Years of History]

Studies have shown that eliminating the SAT requirement does not appear to reduce the quality of incoming students. An independent study released in 2014 found that students who do not submit SAT scores, presumably because they think it would hurt their chance of being accepted, wind up doing just as well as their classmates.

SAT losing favor as more Mass. colleges end requirement - The Boston Globe

You can't really know what you are made of until you are tested.
― O.R. Melling


I think most high performing/well-prepared-for-college students have little to gain from standardized tests. Life isn't standardized, and a mark of high achievers is their ability to excel in unstructured, dynamic circumstances. Top performers will distinguish themselves in ways that standardized exams don't capture. Take, for example, students who attend St. John's College in Maryland. Critical and innovative thinking skills are what makes students successful there, and St. John's graduates graduate with a skillset that enables them to best most any challenge because they are strong thinkers who need only gather technical details (when relevant) to make sense of any situation and prevail in overcoming it.

Standardized tests, unlike essays, have implicit in their design an assumption that the topics tested can be conquered by applying a mechanical set of rules -- language rules, math rules, etc. -- and applying them. Now it's true that in many situations, one can use that approach and find success; however, the most challenging "tests" don't conform to rules. Moreover, when a rule-based testing method is inherent, what high scores necessarily show mastery of the rules, but it is not a given that rule-mastery indicates acute and quick cognition. For example, at the two schools where I know what their SAT average scores are, the SAT averages at both are above 2000 (The ACT average at both is 29.). In schools having students that academically adept, how does the SAT meaningfully distinguish one from another? And with regard to the "national student body," it's again of little value in differentiating the bright kids at those two schools from those at other schools; they are all sufficiently capable, at least as goes what is asked of them on standardized exams. For students of a very high caliber, tests like the SAT are pointless.

Midrange performers on the other hand, I think, are sometimes better served by having a test like the SAT be among the key elements examined by college admissions departments. Such students benefit from taking and scoring high on standardized tests because by so doing, they gain the benefit of the doubt. They do because despite the test evaluating one's proficiency with mechanical aspects of subject matter mastery, the fact remains that high scorers show they have mastered doing just that, and their high score accords them the presumption that they have more "on the ball" than just being strong with the mechanics of any given learning objectives. That they have done also suggests they have some skills that will help them be successful at university academic studies, particularly at the undergraduate level.

Given that highly ranked schools' professors can teach at higher levels, it's important that students matriculating there show at least some promise of being able to at least meet the challenge of being in a more academically competitive environment. The reality is that there is little to be gained by the student, or the school, from placing a student in an environment that is either too challenging or insufficiently challenging. Recognizing that, admissions personnel seek just as much not to place a very strong thinker who scores poorly (or just so-so) on standardized tests into a school where, overwhelmingly, most students are strong at both structured and unstructured challenges.

The key to the merit of standardized tests like the SAT rests in knowing what it does and does not indicate about a student's potential. Mr. Schworm implies as much when he wrote, "Supporters [of the SAT] say it serves as a reliable benchmark of college readiness when combined with grades and course selection, and allows colleges to compare students from a wide range of academic backgrounds." The operative words there are "when combined with;" the SAT is not the "be all, end all" indicator of one's academic skills or potential. Can the things the SAT tests for be evaluated using different approaches? Of course they can.

Does that mean that among the things students must learn is how to "test well?" Perhaps it does, and if it does, so be it. Short of a physiological malady, dyslexia for example, I don't see why it's unreasonable to expect students to learn how to test well. Let's face it, students, like everyone else, take formal and informal tests both big and small every day:

• sitting for formal exams,
• performing well in a job,
• mastering a video game,
• figuring out how to fix a machine,
• structuring a science experiment so it will provide results that answer the question asked in its hypothesis, or
• reasoning their way through a debate topic with friends or in a forensics competition.

In each "test" situation, one must do the same thing: take the information one has already gather, perhaps gather additional information, and synthesize it into a solution approach that works. Some folks are quicker at identifying a successful approach, others find more efficient/effective solutions. Few are the folks who (1) just don't and simply cannot find a viable solution, or who (2) quickly find the most efficient and most effective solution. Other individuals are both fast and effective in all disciplines, others in some, others in few.

The thing for college applicants to do is figure out what they are fast, efficient, and that they enjoy doing. Using that self-awareness of reality, they should then apply not, say, MIT because it's highly rated in nearly all areas, but instead to, say, UC San Francisco or UC San Diego because both are in the top five for biology and they want to major in biology, they are very, very good in biology, and by not aiming for MIT, they buy themselves a slightly less competitive situation overall (i.e., perhaps a bit lower SAT expectation for admission), while effectively sacrificing nothing in the area of greatest import and relevance to their interests.

The SAT seeks, via objective means, to cull and distinguish the gradations among folks' ability to be be both fast and effective in a way that colleges admissions personnel can, given their own time and resources, separate the wheat from the chaff. Thus, in choosing whether to use the SAT as an indicator of what's "wheat" and what's not, the question deans of admissions must ask is whether they (and their staff) can use an alternative approach and do so as efficiently, (seemingly) fairly, and as quantifiably as does the SAT. For schools receiving vastly more applications than available seats, IMO, the answer is "no." Sadly perhaps, for college applicants the only sure way to gain admission to the college of their choice is to "bust ass" and consistently exceed expectations during high school, and they must understand how "the game is played" and focus their efforts accordingly..


If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[320 Years of History]

Not so much for lower income families. The phrase "the rich get richer" comes to mind here. Easy access to information has always been a [nothing difficult] for the wealthy.

Absolutely! That isn't going to ever change unless the idealized vision of communism becomes a reality. I don't see that as something that will happen within the next hundred years. Humans simply aren't evolved enough; greed/selfishness and jealousy are too powerful among human emotions.

The SAT is racist?

good lord



Do either of you eat potatoes? If so, do you know that it's racist to do so?

Potatoes are dark on the outside and white on the inside. to eat it you have to use a special blade to peel away the nasty dark skin and toss it in the garbage.

and that's racist, obviously

Strawman. Who said the SAT was racist?

Its a money making racket that is losing its influence since it scores were closely tied to income levels. Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent...... Asclepias


you did

Anyone thinks that knowledge and skillsets aren't among the things that money can buy is very naive. Well off folks know this, but don't mention it, for obvious reasons. Poor folks know it too, but they complain about it, again, for obvious reasons.

Money cannot buy inherent intellect, intelligence, but it can buy the ability to fully exploit, express, and exercise the intellect with which one is born. Seeing as few folks -- rich, poor or in between -- make the most of their intellect, it stands to reason that rich folks who do can often enough prevail over less financially blessed folks who don't, no matter why they don't.

If one isn't born with a "silver spoon," the onus one faces is not to gripe loudly and convincingly about the advantages of wealth, but instead to direct one's energies toward becoming wealthy enough that one's lack of greater wealth poses no problem for oneself and one's kids. Sure, it helps to be from a family having vast wealth, but vast wealth is hardly what is necessary to bring one's aspirations to fruition. That it doesn't take great stores of money to realize more than adequate success in the United States is, IMO, the whole point of why it's good to be an American.

Should we as a nation have ameliorating tactics that make it possible for the few significantly disadvantaged kids/people to take full advantage of their God-given intellect? Absolutely, but dispensing with tests like the SAT isn't among them. That's not to say the SAT should be retained, or not, but rather that "trashing" it isn't the solution for the problem you've identified. SAT or no SAT, folks from lower income brackets still must receive aid -- and not all of it is even monetary, even though a good share of it is -- if they are to realize their full potential.

 

[jwoodie]

The SAT is racist?

good lord



Do either of you eat potatoes? If so, do you know that it's racist to do so?

Potatoes are dark on the outside and white on the inside. to eat it you have to use a special blade to peel away the nasty dark skin and toss it in the garbage.

and that's racist, obviously

Strawman. Who said the SAT was racist?

The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test

 

[320 Years of History]

The SAT is racist?

good lord



Do either of you eat potatoes? If so, do you know that it's racist to do so?

Potatoes are dark on the outside and white on the inside. to eat it you have to use a special blade to peel away the nasty dark skin and toss it in the garbage.

and that's racist, obviously

Strawman. Who said the SAT was racist?

The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test

Jwoodie, I apologize for perhaps being a loon, but I don't see what in that article demonstrates that the SAT is racist. Then again, all you did was post a link, but I don't actually know whether in doing so you are intimating the SAT is or is not an instrument of racism. (I don't recall the content of the earlier posts in this thread....perhaps I should look back at them...)

I see that the article quite effectively shows there is a gap between the performance of white and black students. I'm willing to accept that there may be societal characteristics, among them racism even, that may or do result in black students being less capable of performing well on the SAT. I'd even be willing to accept, if shown credible evidence, that it might be in some way racially biased for colleges to use the SAT as a key discriminant in selecting students to admit. But the test itself being racist isn't something I see convincingly argued in the article. What have I overlooked?

Perhaps I misunderstand racism. I understand it as a set of racially focused and negatively slanted beliefs that individuals hold. I understand a racist as someone who, holding such beliefs, in turn acts upon or in accordance with them, in ways great and/or small.

 

[jwoodie]

The SAT is racist?

good lord



Do either of you eat potatoes? If so, do you know that it's racist to do so?

Potatoes are dark on the outside and white on the inside. to eat it you have to use a special blade to peel away the nasty dark skin and toss it in the garbage.

and that's racist, obviously

Strawman. Who said the SAT was racist?

The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test

Jwoodie, I apologize for perhaps being a loon, but I don't see what in that article demonstrates that the SAT is racist. Then again, all you did was post a link, but I don't actually know whether in doing so you are intimating the SAT is or is not an instrument of racism. (I don't recall the content of the earlier posts in this thread....perhaps I should look back at them...)

I see that the article quite effectively shows there is a gap between the performance of white and black students. I'm willing to accept that there may be societal characteristics, among them racism even, that may or do result in black students being less capable of performing well on the SAT. I'd even be willing to accept, if shown credible evidence, that it might be in some way racially biased for colleges to use the SAT as a key discriminant in selecting students to admit. But the test itself being racist isn't something I see convincingly argued in the article. What have I overlooked?

Perhaps I misunderstand racism. I understand it as a set of racially focused and negatively slanted beliefs that individuals hold. I understand a racist as someone who, holding such beliefs, in turn acts upon or in accordance with them, in ways great and/or small.

The Age of Reason is over. Much as Stalin doctored official Soviet photographs, we are ridding ourselves of anything (e.g., SAT) that does not promote discrimination as the explanation for all racial disparities.

 

[320 Years of History]

The SAT is racist?

good lord



Do either of you eat potatoes? If so, do you know that it's racist to do so?

Potatoes are dark on the outside and white on the inside. to eat it you have to use a special blade to peel away the nasty dark skin and toss it in the garbage.

and that's racist, obviously

Strawman. Who said the SAT was racist?

The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test

Jwoodie, I apologize for perhaps being a loon, but I don't see what in that article demonstrates that the SAT is racist. Then again, all you did was post a link, but I don't actually know whether in doing so you are intimating the SAT is or is not an instrument of racism. (I don't recall the content of the earlier posts in this thread....perhaps I should look back at them...)

I see that the article quite effectively shows there is a gap between the performance of white and black students. I'm willing to accept that there may be societal characteristics, among them racism even, that may or do result in black students being less capable of performing well on the SAT. I'd even be willing to accept, if shown credible evidence, that it might be in some way racially biased for colleges to use the SAT as a key discriminant in selecting students to admit. But the test itself being racist isn't something I see convincingly argued in the article. What have I overlooked?

Perhaps I misunderstand racism. I understand it as a set of racially focused and negatively slanted beliefs that individuals hold. I understand a racist as someone who, holding such beliefs, in turn acts upon or in accordance with them, in ways great and/or small.

The Age of Reason is over. Much as Stalin doctored official Soviet photographs, we are ridding ourselves of anything (e.g., SAT) that does not promote discrimination as the explanation for all racial disparities.

Just to make sure I understand your most recent comment shown above, I'm going to present it in the positive and ask you tell me if it's what you meant.

The Age of Reason is over. Much as Staling doctored official Soviet photographs, we preserve that which promotes discrimination as the explanation for all racial disparities.​

Is the positive approach to restating your sentence what you meant to write?

 

[Asclepias]

The SAT is racist?

good lord



Do either of you eat potatoes? If so, do you know that it's racist to do so?

Potatoes are dark on the outside and white on the inside. to eat it you have to use a special blade to peel away the nasty dark skin and toss it in the garbage.

and that's racist, obviously

Strawman. Who said the SAT was racist?

The Widening Racial Scoring Gap on the SAT College Admissions Test

I'm not the author of that article. What made you think your link had anything to do with what I said?

 

[jwoodie]

I'm not the author of that article. What made you think your link had anything to do with what I said?

You asked: "Who said the SAT was racist?" I thought the article would shed some light on that.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm not the author of that article. What made you think your link had anything to do with what I said?

You asked: "Who said the SAT was racist?" I thought the article would shed some light on that.

Obviously you missed the point that I was asking who in this thread claimed the SAT was racist as a number of people with terrible logic tried to attribute to me.

 

[oldsoul]

Obviously you missed the point that I was asking who in this thread claimed the SAT was racist as a number of people with terrible logic tried to attribute to me.

While not explicitly saying the SAT is racist, you did imply that it is. Let me refresh your memory, again. You said, "Now its losing its effect as a security blanket for whites with an inferiority complex that used it make themselves feel like they were more intelligent." Are you now arguing that you were mistaken in saying that? Or are you denying that you imply racism with this statement?