Are Liberals grading YOUR Essay? (SAT Story; Read!)

I've still got a ways to go. I acknowledge that.

If you still feel that way when you turn fifty you will not only have gained a lot of knowledge but the wisdom to apply that knowledge.

I had one of those, in a history class. He struck me as being a radical leftist. Now I was not that great a writer but I was a very good student of history.

All his exams were written. I got the only F I ever got at that school from him. I don't remember his first name but he was Dr. Fallis.

There was one Black student I knew fairly well. He was a nice guy but a poor student. One day Dr. Fallis announce that student got the only A. I later looked at his paper and it was really poor. I mean really, really, poor.

That jerk was simply grading on what he wanted the student to have rahter than the grade he deserved.

In all actuality, this thought never even CROSSED my mind until my dad got a detailed report of my scores and told me about the 'welfare equals upset liberals' thing. Up till that point, I thought that my bad score was due to a bad essay (and I still do).

I just put it up here for YOUR thoughts on it. That's all.

I agree with the position you take in your essay, but think that your sentence and paragraph structure is awkward. It is suitable for a FR posting, but not for a school essay. You also failed to follow the instructions to provide "examples taken from your reading, studies, experience, or observations."

There are easy examples from De Tocqueville, the Founding Fathers (particularly Franklin), classic and current sociology as well as numerous political essays and speeches that I can think of to cite for this type of essay.

You provide a first person narrative without scholarly backing, which was what was asked for. The fact that I agree with your opinion is irrelevant to the grade you would get.

Graders in these types of tests should not care about the topic of your essay but the structure and coherence of your arguments and the supporting material you provide.

I have the same gripe about the SAT and how it is used. When I took it 25 years ago, I didn't do too well in the math section. The main reason for this is I moved to another state in my junor year. They were so far behind they were learning in the 11th grade what I had already learned in the 10th. Needless to say, when I took the test I had not even learned many of the topics that were on the test. So acording to the SAT, I would fail in mathematics in college and was not suitable for college. Well, I ended up getting my BA in Mathematics and was half way through my Masters, when financial problems forced me to stop. So much for the "prediction" of the SAT :-)

In all actuality, this thought never even CROSSED my mind until my dad got a detailed report of my scores and told me about the 'welfare equals upset liberals' thing. Up till that point, I thought that my bad score was due to a bad essay (and I still do).

Fair enough. I guess we'll have to take the issue up with your dad then. :-)

When I was in school, I wrote a very personal story for my essay part of the SAT. Funny, although it was almost 30 years ago, I remember it exactly. My English teacher, who actually graded them, told me it was the best essay she had ever read on an SAT.

It was a lousy test question for starters.Unless they were marking off for structure your essay was coherent and made valid points(ie effective reasoning).You should have gotten a better score.Your assumption that your essay was graded by a lib is reasonable and probably correct,consequently your score suffered.Are u taking the SAT's again?Is this for college?

The point of the essay is to see if you are smart enough to make reference to yourself as a minority, female, glbt, socialist, atheist, victim of sexual abuse. Two points for each. You should consider yourself lucky that you didn't get a zero.

The question reads like they consider work to be nothing more than a babysitter for the rabble. A way to mark time without crime and to "socialize". Like modern era High Schools, or Colleges.

School as a playpen; work as a playpen.

The SAT Essays, if not already socio-political litmus tests, will become so. Don't miss that big picture of a lament.

I think his point is the fact that the test is evaluated in a subjective manner. It makes it no more valid than an evaluation at some New Age seminar. The system which the educrats produced is broken, and their tests are essentially broken.

I think you strayed out of the realm.
The realm of strict academic requirements.
You invoked your personal politics (which is fine on one level, because they're mine!), but I think you probably should have regarded the parameters more in economic/ cultural terms. Put perhaps a better way: The desired "answer" to this writing challenge was inherent in the "question"--in terms of response, style, etc.

You may have gotten marked down because of lib graders, but also because of length, unorthodox exam essay style (as someone else pointed out; that is not to say that this wouldn't make a great opinion column, exactly as written), and because, as I said, in my view, you didn't really answer their question.

It would have been a great and inspirational and provocative FR vanity--if you don't believe me, repost the essay alone, under a catchy title (How Welfare Kills Workers, maybe)...and watch the action.

I think his point is the fact that the test is evaluated in a subjective manner. It makes it no more valid than an evaluation at some New Age seminar.

Essays are always evaluated subjectively. There's nothing New Agey about that. Essay-writing is not mathematics and unfortunately can not be graded with multiple choice answers or exact "right anwers". Unless you think there should never be essay questions on tests the subjectiveness is just something that can't be avoided.

Speaking as someone with a 2200 GRE as well as a perfect essay score, and who has never made less than a 100 except in two cases in a liberals art college, I think I'm qualified to criticize you.

(1) Your scorers are being extremely kind. The Freepers here have covered all the reasons why.
(2) You're blaming your failures on ANYBODY but yourself. Doesn't sound exactly right wing. Here's a good rule of thumb to decide whether you're really at fault: if one person blames you, he/she's being cranky. If more than one person blames you, you're at fault.
(3) Being in the top 5% of high schoolers is nothing to brag about.
(4) Your essay in itself shows that you are quite lacking in tact, although that may be a consequence of your age more than anything else.

My suggestion is to log off FreeRepublic and continue your studies. Not that I shouldn't take my own advice...

Never made less than a 100% in an essay at college, anyway... both exceptions were A-minuses... one for forgetting to include the page of citations, and one from a professor who was infamous for not giving out 100s. I did get a 100 from him later on, though...

For around a year I was an ed major. I did take one class which I thought was really good. It was a class on testing. The prof also knew his business.

One thing I learned was that the tests with the greatest reliability were multiple choice and true false, (yes true false, that surprised everyone). Of course essay type tests had the lowest.

Another thing he taught us was that anything can be tested using multiple choice, even writing ability. Don't ask me to explain now but he did convince us at the time.

Apoligies for long post.

Below is an essay my son wrote for his Freshman English class.

He received an "F" on this paper.

This paper was assessed a "F" by the left-wing nutty professor, a professor that denigrated Christianity in the classroom and championed, no-kidding, the Findhorn Garden and worshiped a talking gorilla and other such nonsense. His reading list included:
TEXTS

Thom Hartman, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight
Daniel Quinn, Ishmael
John Robbins, Diet For a New America
Ernest Callenbach, Ecotopia Emerging
The Findhorn Community, The Findhorn Garden

I read these book, always interested in what my son was being taught. Poorly written and just plain awful.

The syllabus has these statements in it:
"As we enter the new millennium, we obviously stand at a moral, ethical, philosophical, and ecological crossroads. Will we remain on the path we’re on (meaning more control, more domination, more people, more “engineering,” more pollution, more exploitation of our planet’s dwindling resources)? "

Interesting perspective.

But wait, there is more;
"Before we get to the calendar, let me offer some words of warning. Some of the material in this course is violent, graphic, and controversial. If explicit material upsets you, if you don’t want to confront and explore your own “prejudices,” if you don’t want to hear things like Christianity and Capitalism and Consumerism analyzed and critiqued, this is definitely not the course for you. "

Eventually my son was givena C- in the class. He kept all his papers and submitted them to the Chair of the Department for a departmental review.

He recieved a B after the appeal.

Mr Smith was soon gone.

Essay Follows:

"The American Culture
A Nation of Sheep?

“Journalistic humbug is the substance of ideology which tries to function in place of theology, perceiving its end in influence rather than truth”
George William Rutler

“. . .any mythology is saner than materialism, and immeasurably less difficult to believe.”
G. K. Chesterton

A nation of Sheep? As Americans are we just meandering through life bleating for our superficial consumer goods just waiting to be shorn by our oppressors? I find that hard to believe. As a people Americans are vibrant, diverse and choosy. How else can we describe the myriad of choices in education, work, consumer goods and political affiliations? In this paper I will examine these issues and provide a unique perspective pointing out the American people are neither sheep or blindly led. I am an individual who exercised free will to write this paper and to express my thoughts.

The Constitution of the United States permits and protects speech that may in no way be considered conformist. It allows the burning of our nation’s flag, pornography and Jerry Springer. It allows freedom of association. Those associations include membership in the Black Panthers, KKK, the Communist and Libertarian parties, the John Birch Society, as well as a number of anarchist organizations. Americans are at the same time a nation of rebels and a nation of conformists. We are diverse in every respect, intellectually, morally, and spiritually.

Rampant destruction, however, is not allowed. To allow any form of destructive behavior would be counterproductive to our freedom. Your rights of association and expression end at my right to live free of threats to my physical and moral well-being. You may choose to demonstrate and I may choose to ignore you. However, if you commit a violent act against my property or me, I can hardly ignore you. It is for this reason there are reasonable limitations to freedom.

A society is nothing more than an agreement between people. The United States Government is a unique government. The ultimate goal of the government was to ensure minimum harm with maximum freedom. This concept of freedom encourages more personal freedom. We are permitted by this government to choose whatever “life, liberty and happiness” that we desire. If for some reason what we desire is unattainable in the United States, we are free to leave.

If we are, in fact, a “nation of sheep” then why are we having this discussion regarding this so called “trance”? If we were in a “trance” we wouldn’t care. Indeed, who can argue with Charles T. Tart when he said, “Intelligence, discrimination, and personal experience are what is needed, not blind belief or blind disbelief.” However, we are not, as alleged by the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, a society run “by ruling elites without the overt use of force and without those who were under the hegemony being uncomfortably aware of the forces at work in the situation.”

True freedom is one that requires one to think and be able to choose wisely. If blindly following the herd is the way you want to live your life, it is truly your choice. However, if you just give up your freewill and follow the herd because “everyone is doing it,” this is dangerous. Another dangerous idea is thinking that the herd is always knows best. Another great wrong is committed if you let others do the thinking for you. It is clearly more difficult to think for yourself, and to entertain the possibility the herd may be wrong and your instincts may be right. With that decision-making approach, you can truly say whatever decision you make is a result of free and informed choice.

In Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, motivations are examined to explain human behavior. Ultimately, Dr. Maslow says self-actualization may only be achieved if all other needs are satisfied. This means physical, safety, social and self-esteem factors must be satisfied before you can achieve your own potential. Therefore, in this context, consumerism to satisfy lesser needs is a noble activity. Consumerism in support of self-actualization is no vice (apologies to Barry Goldwater). Indeed, only a well-fed, safe and secure people have the luxury of examining what life is all about. All other societies are just trying to stay alive. Regardless, both states of existence are not conductive to a trance-like existence.

According to Charles T. Tart’s analysis of G. I. Gurdjieff in Waking Up, Gurdjieff explained the concept of essence and false personality. Gurdjieff’s premise is that essence is what you are, and you are a combination of physical traits, biological determinants, emotional states and spiritual matters. He say’s a person will likely never achieve his potential (self-actualize) unless that person is able to shed the clothes of society and culture. Apparently, stripping away social and cultural norms are necessary to discover “truth.” However, if one elects to live in a society, that person is bound to live by the social norms associated with that society. The implicit contract between a person and society requires such a concession. Therefore, if passing gas in public is offensive, then the newcomer should stop passing gas in public.

A “trance” as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is to be: “A hypnotic, cataleptic, or ecstatic state.” It further goes on to describe a trance as “(a) detachment from one's physical surroundings, as in contemplation or daydreaming.” Maybe Charles T. Tart was trying to use the second definition. If that was the case, Charles T. Tart was speculating that we are daydreaming and are not fully aware of our potential. However, a more colorful version of a trance in Tom Brown Jr’s Grandfather “The Tree Speaks.” In this trance, closeness with Earth (God?) is achieved as a result of a trance and is not daydreaming.

In The Tree Speaks, a trance is supposed to improve spiritual growth and your relationship with the Earth. The thought that “nature” is spiritual has its roots in pagan religions. At their core, Pagan religions believe man and nature are part of the “natural energies,” and interconnected.

During their 1973-74 annual meeting, The Council of American Witches published a religious statement that said, in part :
· “We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the phases of the Moon and the seasonal quarters and cross-quarters.”
· “We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment.”
· “We seek to live in harmony with Nature, in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and consciousness within an evolutionary concept.”
· “A Witch seeks to control the forces within him/herself that make life possible in order to live wisely and well, without harm to others, and in harmony with Nature.
· “We do not accept the concept of 'absolute evil,' nor do we worship any entity known as 'Satan' or 'the Devil' as defined by Christian Traditions.”
· “We work within Nature for that which is contributory to our health and well-being.”
Pagans believe the Earth and man are spiritually linked. You can assume that because we are all living on the Earth this means we share a common existence. However, it is not reasonable to make a spiritual connection between all life-forms/forces and that the Earth has a collective spirit. Tom Brown Jr. certainly shares common ground with those beliefs. Because I am not a Pagan I will not ask myself if Mother Earth would be pleased with my values and my behavior. There is no “Mother Earth,” in a spiritual sense, and to think otherwise is to endorse Paganism. I am not a Pagan, and asking that question would require I assign a knowing spirit to the Earth and assume a Pagan perspective.

Daniel Quinn advances believes that we are trained to “enact” and this is what makes us very destructive. We are told we are destructive and that we are the enemy to all living things. This premise is startling and frightful. Is our mere existence really a threat to all life on the planet? Are we really that evil? Apparently Daniel Quinn thinks we are a big threat, but at the same does not think we are all that important to the Earth. Daniel Quinn says in his B Attitudes :
“Blessed are those who do not fancy themselves rulers or managers or stewards of the Earth, for the Earth managed to thrive for three billion years without any of us.”
Of course. For billions of years the Earth survived without any help from man. No matter what happened it still survived. From the above statement we can see that Quinn is saying it is very arrogant for mankind to assume stewardship of the Earth and this would mean man does not present a great threat to the Earth. This goes against the enemy-of-all-life approach he stated earlier. To confuse matters even further, to use another spiritual guide (The Bible), man is chartered to rule over the beasts of the Earth. Which are correct? Quinn's statement that mankind is-and-is-not a steward of the Earth and a threat to all life? Or is the Bible correct in giving man stewardship over all the Earth? The answer may be found in what we know about life and death and spiritual matters. Using what we know about such things we can safely say Quinn and I don’t actually know. We both rely on faith. As G. K. Chesterton said regarding faith, “Faith is a thing to be respected, especially when it has no apparent supports but in the soul.” Indeed, I know I don’t know, but know what I believe.

My life is like many other American citizens; I was born in freedom and in a loving family, growing up protected by a stable government and encouraged by family to reach my potential. My life is a direct result of who and what I am, as well as the environment I was raised (nature versus nurture?). Nonetheless, I have the greatest influence on what I become in life. Therefore, my pursuit of happiness involves getting an education and achieving independence that only comes from freedom from want. My life has not been a struggle against the odds, but rather a struggle with myself to, “Be all (I) can be.” I can be all I can be when I think and act in my best interest.

All in all, I am of equal value to all other people and much more valuable than the house-cat. I can achieve good and I can achieve bad. It is my choice. I can choose to abandon the comforts of my existence and live in a tree and forgo modern medicine. If I do that, then my life would become, as Thomas Hobbes wrote in Leviathan in 1651 , “nasty, brutish and short.” However, if I continue my pursuit of happiness I will live comfortably and support my family and myself. That is the greater good.

I am a unique person, an individual. As an individual I make choices, I choose what to wear or not wear, when to get up in the morning or to sleep in. These decisions are based on the pros and cons of the decisions. Quite simply, if the pros outweigh the cons, I decide in that direction. If the cons outweigh the pros, then the decision is made based upon my choice to suffer the consequences. Others may chose differently. Therein lies the crux of “free will.” With out free will, given the same situation, all people will chose the same option—they simply have no choice. Our argument about the existence of free will proves the existence of free will. If there were no free will, you would be unaware of the existence of choice, but because we are discussing free will, this is obvious proof of free will.

I am lucky to have been born in a country where I have the rights to free thought, free expression and the freedom to do what I darn well please-—as long as I am doing no harm. Therefore, if I want to live in a tree in the mountains of Montana and forgo the benefits of modern dentistry and die from a simple toothache, I can. If I want to move out of the country to live under communist oppression, I can. If I want to watch MTV, vegetate and bad-mouth my country, I can. The alternative, living for the liberal version of “collective good” (however that is defined and by who) is a frightening concept.

Consumerism is a good thing. It allows a high standard of living and helps to encourage personal development. It protects the rights of the few from the tyranny of the many. Considering the option of choosing to live elsewhere, I choose to live here. I live a cleaner, healthier and more productive existence in the United States than anywhere else in the world.

The biggest polluters in the world are third world countries and collective governments. Apparently these governments didn’t get the memo about being kind and generous to the planet. Their oppressive governments stifle free will. When that happens, people give up and die, on the outside and inside. As a direct result, the government becomes inefficient and damaging—both to the people and the environment. Free societies encourage economic well-being, and economic success leads to an ability to afford “eco-friendly” technologies. This explains why the Kyoto Agreement on global warming allows exemptions to third world and communist governments—they simply can’t afford to operate cleanly.

I am and I want to be a consumer. I want to be a person who spends and saves and adds life to American society and the economy. I want to be a “taker,” because as a taker I help to infuse the economy of the United States and this, in turn, gives our county its strength and success, and gives me a longer, cleaner and more healthy life. It also makes for a cleaner environment.

You ask, “Do you see yourself gradually (or perhaps not so gradually) changing, becoming a saner, more balanced, more environmentally- friendly being?” I find this to be an unusual question. Is it implying that I am less sane than I should be? Is it telling me that I am not “eco-friendly” enough? This is an unfair question. There seems to be no right answer.
I personally believe that I am very sane. I don’t see how I could become saner. It is ridiculous to ask that. I believe myself to be a well balanced person and aware of my goals. I am a committed American consumer that supports an economy that permits conservationism. It would be less sane to turn my back on success. Finally, I remain dedicated to the principles of personal freedom and individual responsibility. It takes courage to stand by my beliefs during a time when is fashionable and politically correct (PC) to hug trees. It takes no courage to sway and bend to the winds of PC.

Quinn writes “. . . if you take this educational journey with me, you’re going to find yourself alienated from the people around you--friends, family, past associates, and so on.” This statement sounds remarkable like those of a cult. Cults often warn believer that if they embrace their belief they should be prepared to abandon their friends, family and associates. Jim Jones, the leader of a cult in the 1980’s and Mr. “Do,” the leader of the Heaven’s Gate cult both preached leaving family, friends, past and possessions behind. They also led their followers in mass suicide. Given this context, absent the suicide factor, it is reasonable to call Ishmael (Quinn) a cultist. As G. K. Chesterton said, “Unless that part of the mind is satisfied by a faith it will be satisfied by a fad: those who have destroyed a church have only created a sect.”

My children will be raised to resist cults. They shall become well-educated, kind and productive members of society. They will not worship the Earth. They will believe human existence to be worth more than a snail darter. They will have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They will not be sheep.

Where I went to school that "essay" of yours would have given me "0 points - topic failed". Even in 8th grade.

You are harsh but perhaps that is what is needed in todays schools. I attended H.S. in the 50's and early 60's and agree that that the essay would have received a d at the 8th or 9th grade level. It would not have passed. After ignoring my studies the night before this resembles one I might have written in the last 5 minuets of homeroom before 1st period English class.

I would have to say that a broad-based test like the SAT should never have subjectiveness as a tool to manipulate scores. It does nothing to elucidate appititude or ability. It can be used to disadvantage those who are not politically correct. Subjectiveness has much application in, for example, the thesis or dissertation writing portion of a Masters or Doctoral program. In those situations, the progress of such a document might change as the writer deciphers new information or insights, under the tootilage of a major professor or committee. But in an entrance examination I fail to see universality as the rule of analysis which may hindge that students acceptance or lack of acceptance to a college, and therefore feel it should never be used like this. If it is intended to allow the student to demonstrate writing ability and sentence structure, let that student diagram sentences or correct improper application of nouns, verbs, etc. There is enough subjectivity in life without disadvantaging worthy students.

The reference to "New Age" was simply to highlight the adoption of any and all philosophies (except Christianity) as it applies to subjectiveness.