Go to the link below and read the article carefully. You may want to have a word file open as you read to keep running notes on the author's argument. When you are finished, post a one-paragraph summary of the argument to the blog (no more than 200 words) and write a second paragraph explaining why you agree or disagree with the contentions made in the article.
If you do not finish during class, do so for homework.
http://american.com/archive/2007/july-august-magazine-contents/abolish-the-sat
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Conner Akers
ReplyDeleteI agree with Murray in his opinion that the SAT should be abolished from the college admissions system. He argues that the SAT is a test based on individual talent and intelligence and that at such a young age, these talents are met with various levels of intelligence because on the environment in which different teenagers live. He states that a wealthy parent can “buy their child a good SAT score.” He supports this statement buy pointing out that wealthy parents have the ability to hire coaches that teach “cheats” and aid their child by going over and explaining material. For this reason, intelligence runs in the family and it is argued that there are many talented students who never get the chance to shine because of their environment.
These less fortunate students, on the other hand will be much more familiar with the curriculum than ways to strenuously figure out problems. For this reason they do much better on achievement tests than on the SAT. To add on to this, many studies have taken place that release statistics proving that achievements tests are a better indicator of how well the student will do in college. Why should someone who isn’t extremely intelligent be shorthanded by someone who doesn’t try and does better on a test that scores aptitude? The first student may easily understand the curriculum and by this logic there is no reason he or she wouldn’t do well in college.
Charles Murray brings up an unusual, but effective argument to abolish the administration of the SAT. Murray admits that the SAT wasn’t always a bad thing. He claims that it used to be a “friend of the little guy.” The SAT’s purpose was to show that students of small schools could compete intellectually with those of bigger more elite schools. Now with addition of AP tests and achievement tests, Murray argues that SAT is unnecessary. Studies show that the SAT is almost worthless in predicting Freshman grades. He brings up a valid point by saying the SAT only shows part of a Students aptitude, not how hard they try or work. Murrays second point argues that only middle to upper class kids do well on the SAT, because their parents can afford tutors and classes.
ReplyDeleteI do not completely agree with Murray, but I can see some truth in his argument. The SAT shows students potential, but does not show how the students have used it. I’ve heard of many situations where a student with mediocre grades aces the SAT. The second part of Murray’s argument can also be true in some cases. Tutors and classes boost SAT scores, but are fairly expensive and not offered to everyone. This gives wealthier students an unfair advantage on the SAT
Charles Sanford
The arguments against the SAT and for its abolishment are ample enough to justify the removal of this “life landmark.” Some argue that it is a biased test favorable towards the wealthy because it was started by and focused on by elite schools during its inception. The article argues that the test is an inaccurate measure of the student’s freshman grade point and how well they will do in college. SAT stands for Scholastic Aptitude and the concept of “aptitude” has changed drastically overtime, diluting what the term actually means. The SAT is an ineffective factor in college acceptance because the smartest kids in the worst school have less appealing scores. The SAT provides an auspicious light towards the wealthy and causes the poor intelligent students to be in a disadvantageous disposition.
ReplyDeleteLike grades, tests are hardly a mark of intelligence. One test that decides the fate of a student is overwhelming and causes stress on the student. It is ridiculous to determine one’s fate during a course of the day. The article claims that there are students who are apathetic towards the test. There are definitely alternatives for the SAT that can supplement the needs of the ones with high-ability, but unfortunate.
Murray’s article is arguing that the SAT is an ineffective way to test students, and that it can be abolished with no great loss to students or the colleges that they are seeking to get into. He begins his argument against the SAT by saying what it was created for, which was to give students of all backgrounds an equal chance to get into a good college, and what it has turned into. Murray argues that the SAT has been diluted by unnecessary changes in the test that were made just to try and tip the scales toward low-scoring minority’s out of a sense of political correctness. He then uses various studies to show that the SAT was not the most accurate indicator of someone’s intelligence, and that there are several other quicker, cheaper, and easier ways to find that out. He closes up his argument with accusations that the two main reasons that the SAT is still in use is the incredibly expensive coaching industry and a sense of political correctness from the College Board.
ReplyDeleteI agree with nearly all of Murray’s arguments. His article is well planned, well written, and very persuasive. Murray is right that the test doesn’t really measure aptitude, but how many tutoring sessions you can afford for your children. This leads to obvious discrepancies between test takers of various social classes. He also brought up the point that subject tests and a students GPA are just as valid ways to see how smart a student really is. Murray’s logical arguments, along with the plethora of statistics that he uses to back them up, was more than enough to convince me that the SAT should be abolished.
Charles Murray's point of view on “why the SAT should be abolished” proves a legitimate point. There were many motives that Charles made and they are: one achieves a great score on the SAT because they come from a wealthy family, colleges want to “increase their enrollment of inner- city blacks and hispanics, and are willing to make large allowances for bad schooling to do so”, and most of the privileged people get the higher scores on the SAT. The wealthy can help their children to get a good score on the SAT because they pay for coaching and tutors. It is very rare that one who lives in the inner city and does not have a family with the highest income, to get a great score on the SAT. If colleges would like to be able to accept the intelligent multi- racial students, then they should not administer the SAT because colleges would like to be more culturally diverse. No matter how rich or how poor, if a student does well on achievement tests then they should be able to go to a college of their choice rather than having to prove themselves through a single high standard test, such as the SAT.
ReplyDeleteI highly agree with the statement Mr. Murray made. I do well in school for all of the classes I take and I do well enough to where I could get into a school of my choice. I do not believe that I should have to prove all of my intelligence through one, single test that could possibly make or break me. I know I have to accept the fact that I will definitely have to take this test this year and that I will have to prepare myself and study hard for it, but I disagree with the fact that my scores will be a large portion proving if I get into a certain college or not. Many students stress and freak out about the SAT because they feel that they have to get the perfect score out there. It is true that you should get a good score but do not think that if someone does better than your 1200 that you are not as smart. Many people I know have tutors that enhance their learning abilities but I also know that many of my friends who go to the public schools in our town do not have the abilities some of their more privileged peers have. Those who are getting straight A's, go to a public school, and are part of a less fortunate family should have the same ability to get into the same college as one who has straight A's, goes to a private school, and is part of a wealthy family. I agree with Mr. Murray when he says that the SAT should be abolished due to diverse measures of academics, class, and education.
In Charles Murray’s article he provides clear and detailed evidence as to how the SAT is
ReplyDeleteprejudice against poorer America. He argues that it is heavily weighted for the wealthy upper-middle class. The SAT is used as an aptitude test by colleges to decide which students are best suited for their school. However, it has become much more. In recent studies it has been shown that half of the 700+ scores have been given to students whose parents bring in more than $100,000 per years and roughly 90 percent of the students scoring 700 or higher have at least one parents with a college degree and over half had a parents with a graduate degree. This provides evidence for prejudices the SAT presents. Families in the upper-middle class can afford to send their children to the top notch schools like Exeter and Andover which provide their children with the curriculum closest to what they would expect to see on the SAT. Many agree that although the SAT is the only way to put all students on an equal scale it is prejudice against those who do not have the funds to pay for a private school education or who can’t
afford private tutors.
Opinion:
I agree with Murray’s arguments. I believe the SAT is prejudice towards less fortunate students.
Having taken the SAT I am fully aware of the challenges it poses and the stress it causes. For most people the SAT decides their future and sets the parameters for the rest of their life. The SAT will decide what college you get into scholarships you can earn and in the long run dictates the rest of your life. They SAT throws extensive vocabulary and situations in their questions, often times vocabulary and situations most inner-city kids have never been accustomed to. Those who can afford private tutoring and $40,000 per year tuition definitely have a better advantage over the SAT and those who cannot afford that send their children to public schools where education, although important, may not be the number one priority. I agree that the SAT is the most fair way to put all students on the same scale but College Board needs to become more aware of the socio-economic standards of the majority of students in America. The SAT need to either become less biased or be disregarded all together and colleges simply use other aptitude tests such as AP exams or standardized tests to determine eligibility of incoming freshman.
Finn Koppernaes
ReplyDeleteThe article by Charles Murray talks about his argument on why the SAT should be discontinued. In his argument he tells us it is an unfair process by which the rich families will produce the best SAT scores, because they will buy their way through courses and better education. Another argument he made was that the best SAT scores are usually from the best schools, which also require a lot of money to attend. However, he also states that money also isn’t everything and that some people can just take the SAT and get a high score. Murray, who came from a small town and went to Harvard, agrees with the SAT on the fact that it is “a friend to the little guy”. Meaning if you are from a small town and go to a mediocre school it is your chance to be seen. Ultimately Murray was trying to persuade his audience into believing that the SAT in fact is a bad process in applying for college.
I agree with Murray’s argument against the SAT, because I also believe there is an unfair advantage to certain people in the process. The wealthier parents in the U.S. will usually tend to place there child in a more expensive school which includes a better education most of the time. This also means they can afford to pay for private SAT tutoring, to learn the “tricks” and “shortcuts” to improve you score. A lot of families cannot afford to do so, leaving them with a lower score. Also the SAT is times leaving students to most likely rush through questions carelessly not giving them enough time to effectively check their work. This does not prove a students intelligence, which troubles me the most with the SAT, because a student could work hard all year and achieve good class grades but do poorly on the SAT. Thus potentially ruining their chances to get in the college of their choice. That is why I agree with Charles Murray in saying the SAT should not be included in the college application process.