 |
| Intelligence comes in varied forms, each most effective when balanced with others. Photo credit: © Winterberg | Dreamstime.com |
I agree with Murray’s position. The SAT has become
useless in light of cognitive stratification, effective achievement testing,
and the value now placed on other qualifications. I further contend that continued
use of the SAT is detrimental because it enforces a distorted view of
intelligence.
When I took the SAT in 1990, my scores earned me numerous acceptances
(including Yale), a stack of academic scholarships, and membership in MENSA. I
did no prep work whatsoever. I didn't need to. As with most IQ and other “aptitude”
tests, the SAT is specifically designed to measure the type of intelligence I
happen to have in abundance. If, however, I had been asked to describe the room
in which I took the test or, worse, to draw it, I’d have failed miserably. I do
not register things around me – a skill critical to successful police work –
and I cannot draw – a necessary ability for artists and architects.
For some inexplicable reason, society reveres my kind of
intelligence and thinks everyone ought to aspire to it. But “best” is a variable
value. The best college (or job) is the one most suited to an individual’s
goals and abilities. “Elite” colleges are neither necessary nor beneficial to
everyone and anyone who thinks doctoring is a better or more important
profession than plumbing has never seen a table drain back up during an
autopsy.
I currently work with the most talented, intuitive designer
I have seen in the course of my 20-year marketing career. She’s also a natural teacher
and would make an extraordinary college design instructor… if she could pass
the GRE. Since her brain doesn't work that way, no student will ever profit
from her skill, ability, or mentorship. This is the kind of sheer idiocy perpetuated
by emphasis on tests like the SAT.
Maggie Worth
Still A Valuable Measurement Of Collegiate Skills
Murray’s suggestion to abolish the SAT holds no
warrant as the standardized test is a necessary measurement of a student’s
ability to succeed in post-secondary education. Maggie argues that the SAT
“enforces a distorted view of intelligence”; however, people are failing to
remember that the SATs are not measuring what one’s learned, but rather one’s
ability to analyze, reason, and solve—critical skills needed to succeed in
college.
Murray’s claim that SAT scores are a direct
correlation to socioeconomic status is completely inconceivable. I, myself, did
not attend a high school associated with high society nor did I have the
“affluence” to receive prep from Kaplan or Princeton Review. However, the high
school I attended—one of which Murray would classify as mediocre—offered a
year-long SAT prep class which allowed me to acquire the strategies needed to earn
an acceptable score.
Murray’s proposal that colleges should only regard
achievement test scores and GPAs as requirement for admission ignores the fact that
assessing the combination of SAT Reasoning scores and GPAs is a more accurate
indication of a student’s capability to succeed in college. The measurement of
a high school GPA alone does not assess a student’s reasoning and analytical
skills. High GPAs and achievement test scores can be obtained through pure
memorization which fails to measure actual intellect. If anything, such
proposal—if followed through—would only foster more controversy in the topic of
students’ academic success having a parallel relationship to their social
classes.
In contrast to Murray’s argument, the SAT reveals
itself to be a valuable measurement in the consideration of future college
students and their academic capabilities. Without such measurement, colleges
would have an inadequate indication of a student’s intellect.
Ashley Durant
No comments:
Post a Comment