Dumbing Down the SAT

National Review Online ^ | March 25, 2002 | Stanley Kurtz

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I do not understand why Liberals get so upset with this sort of stuff because the two racial groups who consistently score the highest on both the ACT and SAT tests are minorities: Jews and Asians. Enough said, Liberals have nothing going for them here with a complaint such as this.

[jurisdog]

Sorry, but vocabulary is not a sign of intelligence, its a sign of culture and upbringing. Unless and until the PARENTS and TEACHERS of the students that are scoring poorly on the SAT in groups are held accountable, I really have no problem with changing the test to measure objective indicators of intelligence (logic problems using plain english, and math, etc.)

[amstaff1]

What is so incredible, but not surprising about this is that the liberal left think it's the right that's the cause of the anti-intellectual movement in America today. Of course on this and so many other things, they haven't got a clue. Having lived in California for many years now but not a native, I'll never understand the hows or the whys behind that statement "As California goes, so goes the rest of the nation." My advise to anyone who wants to get something done but is not sure how to approach the subject, go to California, see how they do it there and then do the exact opposite and you'll have a good shot at success.

[El Sordo]

They only concern themselves with preferred minorities.

[Freee-dame]

Sorry, but vocabulary is not a sign of intelligence, its a sign of culture and upbringing.

The SAT is not an intelligence test. It's a measure of a person's readiness for academic achievement at the college level.

[umgud]

The cream will still rise to the top, but the curds will think they have too.

[toenail]

Why did Carl Brigham develop the SAT, and who supported him? To what ends?

---

I like one of John Taylor Gatto's comments:

School became jail-time to escape if you could, arenas of meaningless pressure as with the omnipresent "standardized" exams, which study after study concluded were measuring nothing real.
For instance, take the case of Bill Bradley. . .
	and George W. Bush,
two of the four finalists in the 2000 presidential race. Bradley had a horrifying 480 on the verbal part of his own SATs, yet graduated from Princeton, won a Rhodes Scholarship, and became a senator; Bush graduated from Yale, became governor of Texas, and president of the United States-with a mediocre 550. If you can become governor, senator, and president with mediocre SAT scores, what exactly do the tests measure?

---

[lds23]

Part of the problem is trying to push everyone through to college. It's not appropriate for everyone. But there's big money in it, so the education establishment couldn't care less.

I'd be happy if my kids were an electrician, a plumber, a doctor, a lawyer, and an auto mechanic!

[lds23]

I'm a big GWB supporter, but I just had to LMAO at that picture!

[FirstFlaBn]

Anecdotes do not evidence make.

[quebecois]

A couple of random thoughts:

1) This development will have terrible effects on certain groups who tend to do well on the SATs (due to a high mean intelligence). Jews, in particular, are drastically overrepresented at elite colleges, partly due to their high scoring on the exam. When this test is removed, they will recede into the mass of other applicants.

2) Long term, this will damage elite universities (esp the Ivy League). In the old days, those schools were at the top due to the social status of their students and alums. Nowadays, their status derives from the fact that they get the smartest students (The Bell Curve shows a wonderful graph in which the perceived quality of a school smoothly increases with the school's mean student SAT score). Without an ability to determine which students actually ARE the smartest, the elite schools will not be able to "cherry pick". Over time, this will erode thier reputation.

3) This change will damage the perception that is held by most members of our society in regards to the legitimacy of existing social and ecomomic strata. Basically, most folks in America think that those who go to elite schools and get high-paying jobs do so because they have a combination of work ethic/natural talent (read: intelligence). Folks think that anyone who works hard and is blessed with natural talent will move into that upper strata. This belief is essential to the continuance of our social system (which has large amounts of inequality). When the faith that this strata is equally applied via objective intelligence measurement erodes (and is replaced by some politicized mechanism of deciding who moves up and who doesn't)....the faith in the system goes down the tubes.

[xsysmgr]

I do not understand why Liberals get so upset with this sort of stuff because the two racial groups who consistently score the highest on both the ACT and SAT tests are minorities: Jews and Asians.

This comment has got to be tongue-in-cheek. The "Jews and the Asians" routinely succeed and reliably vote Democrat. The problem is the Liberal's favorite minority, the blacks, don't "routinely succeed," and so the Dem's are afraid they will no longer reliably vote Demo, hence more "equality" is required to assure their votes.

It has nothing to do with "equity", "fairness", "equality", or any of the other pablem the Dems spew: It's all about votes.

[Biblebelter]

What does graduating from an Ivy League school have to do with getting an education? An Ivy League diploma means that you were born into an elite or you were able to successfully jump through the elitist hoops. Bush is President not because he is educated, but because his father was a former President, CIA Director, and Ambassador to China. And his Grandfather was a somebody also. I personally think this country would be a better place without Ivy League elitist Presidents. No one ever accused Ronald Reagan of having an Ivy League education and he is by far the greatest President in my life time.

[Betteboop]

bump for later

[PoisedWoman]

Grades are no indication of brain power, given the fact that everyone now gets an A on everything to protect their precious self-esteem from taking hits. Also, kids who attend tough high schools may have lower grades than kids who graduate from walk-through high schools with straight A;s, though the kids from tougher schools with B averages actually know much more and are much better prepared for college. The SAT is necessary and should be as tough as possible.

[antidemocommie]

When you're inviting 3rd world countries to move to America, you can't expect them to be able to cut the proverbial mustard academically speaking, so you have to dumb everything down so they will "feel good" about themselves.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

You are correct in many aspects; it is true that Jews as a racial group, tend to vote Democrat, but there has been no credible evidence showing that Asians consistently vote Democrat. Rather, they have been shown to be very similiar to whites in terms of family values, family structure, and voting trends. For example, experts cannot say that whites vote one way or another, but rather that their economic status and social values are the biggest factor in calculating voting trends and not their race. Asians are found to be very similiar and their voting patterns are not as easily grouped together.