If anything, removing such a standard compromises the academic rigor of colleges across the country. If you think the SAT is an unnecessarily stressful test on adolescents, try taking any of my calculus, expository writing, organic chemistry, molecular biology, biochemistry, or human parasitology exams.
The biggest problems with their argument:
- Just because people take these tests unprepared doesn't mean the tests themselves are flawed.
- It's not the fault of the SAT's for weeding out academically unprepared individuals from entering college, which adds to the rigor of these institutions.
- A vast majority of principals from low-income high schools will take the same position. It's called professional bias, they'll take the side that will make their lives and the lives of their students easier at any expense.
- Noting that the difference in family income plays a role in how well students do should not be a criteria for eliminating standardized testing for college entry. Looking at family income should be a red flag that tells us that there is a serious lack of equity in the public school system (which nobody seems to give a damn about -- i.e. let's remove standards rather than fix this social inequity).
- Every university implements entry exams anyway! So chances are, if you're afraid of the SAT's because of how you'll do, you'll still be placed in remedial classes and pay full tuition rather than take the SAT's in hopes of earning scholarships based on your performance.
- Would you trust a doctor who scored a 15 (out of 45) on their MCAT's and managed to get a back-alley medical degree? I wouldn't. Would you believe a "college graduate" from an online institution is as competent as somebody who actually went to school and conducted supervised research in your area of employment? Would you trust a structural engineer who scored a 350 (out of 800) on the math section to design a suspension bridge? Probably not. These standards may be painful but they are necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment