Dumbing Down the SAT

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

[xsysmgr]

The very existence of intelligence differences in America is about to become a forbidden truth

s intelligence un-American? It didn't used to be. But the times they are a-changin'. The American belief in the fundamental equality of all human beings is our glory and our foundation. But American equality has always meant equality of opportunity and equality before the law. The problem since the Sixties has been that some now demand equality of result — and more. For many on the Left, even inequalities of intelligence and physical difference are now forbidden. Through gender-norming and the general degradation of standards, our armed forces have been pretending for years that the physical differences between men and women don't exist. The war may have changed that, as indicated by the Bush administration's reform of DACOWITS (the nest of feminists at the Pentagon that for a decade has undermined standards in the name of "gender equity"). But buried on page 10 of Saturday's New York Times (and in the second section of last Friday's Wall Street Journal) was news that the very existence of intelligence differences in America is about to become a forbidden truth.

Last year, Richard Atkinson, president of the nation's largest university system, the University of California, proposed dumping the SAT test. Atkinson justified the projected move with the claim that the SAT, as a measure of aptitude rather than achievement, was unfair to those who could maximize their potential through hard work in high school and college. But Atkinson's move was a transparent attempt to circumvent California's Proposition 209, which outlawed race preferences in admission to California's public colleges. (For more on this, see my "Academic Postmodernity & the SATs.")

Now, with Atkinson's proposal slowly but successfully working its way through the ruling bureaucracy of the University of California system, an intimidated College Board has announced a sweeping reform of the SAT, one that will turn it from an aptitude test into something much closer to an achievement test. This desperate attempt to head off a national stampede away from the SAT is a serious mistake. The feared stampede would probably never have materialized, and could in any case have been very effectively battled. More important, there is nothing wrong — and everything right — with colleges basing their admissions decisions, in part, on a clear measure of student aptitude.

College admissions offices already have measures of student achievement to work with — grades, and a wide range of achievement tests. Colleges do, and should, take these measures of achievement into account. The point of the SAT is to add something new and important to the mix — a test of general aptitude. An aptitude test actually works in favor of students who come from lesser high schools but have the potential to achieve at higher levels in college. By destroying the SAT as a measure of aptitude, all that is accomplished is the suppression of a real and significant dimension of difference among students. As usual, in other words, the truth is being sacrificed to political correctness.

The SAT's famous verbal analogies, for example, are slated to be significantly scaled back or cut out entirely. Why? Because those who know English as a second language are said to be disadvantaged by the analogies. They do better with vocabulary quizzes that rely on rote memorization. So the critical intellectual capacities revealed when someone is asked to actually compare and relate words instead of simply spit back memorized definitions, can no longer be measured for anyone — simply because we are afraid to disadvantage a few. The solution here is to return to an emphasis on English immersion for immigrants, not the destruction of a critical test for all Americans.

To measure achievement, the math portion of the test will now be significantly more difficult. The original SAT actually did not require a command of advanced math. Again, it was looking to see how well people confronted and manipulated mathematical challenges. But with the emphasis on aptitude gone, bright kids who might be able to master higher math if given the chance will actually be tougher to identify. Besides, math grades and math achievement tests already show who has mastered high level math. This is nothing but an attempt to manipulate the SAT test until the results come out the way the testers want them to. Since minorities tend to do less well on aptitude tests, the test itself must go.

No doubt, individual intelligence differences are in some measure heritable. But I do not believe that class or race differences on aptitude tests are genetically based. Certainly, researchers have never succeeded in disentangling the effects of early experience from test results. If poor or minority students test lower on the SAT's than others, the way to solve the problem is to improve the conditions of life for these children, not to pretend that aptitude differences among high school students don't exist.

The destruction of the SAT as an aptitude test is an epoch-making move. Reflecting this, the test itself will probably be renamed. (Since the "Scholastic Aptitude Test" will no longer be a reliable measure of aptitude.) But this epochal change is being slipped by the American public in exactly the way that the most controversial advances in affirmative action have been established in the past. Quiet executive orders and behind the scenes bureaucratic decisions are the strategies of choice for liberal elites, operating against the weight of public opinion, in the matters of racial preferences and gender norming. And now, a profound change in the meaning of the SAT has been buried in the middle of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. (The news pages of the Journal, by the way, are editorially quite separate from their conservative opinion pages.) And of course, instead of seeking out potential critics of the policy, the Times simply went for comment to Nicholas Lemann, a prominent advocate of affirmative action and critic of the SAT. This is a lesson in how press bias really works. Not only does the Times puff up stories on social changes that it likes by front-paging them, it downplays changes likely to arouse conservative opposition.

There was a time when Americans believed that finding and training the country's finest minds was in the national interest. Certainly, all American children ought to have access to quality education. But, ultimately, it is to our collective advantage as a nation to have a way of identifying students of high aptitude. And it is fairer to students themselves — especially those from lesser schools — to have a way of recognizing intellectual potential that has not yet come to the surface.

The irony is that support for destruction of the SAT test comes from a liberal elite that is itself the product of our educational meritocracy. Guilt about success combines here with a hidden craving for moral superiority over the benighted middle classes. Those in the middle — and many minorities as well — still believe in the principles of liberty and equality that created the meritocracy in the first place. But once again, the liberal elite, in a conversation amongst itself, is managing to turn our most basic values and practices inside out — with nary a peep from a public that would fight these changes if they were honestly told what is happening.

A proposed policy change from a powerful and extremely liberal university president (put forward with fundamental dishonesty about its real motives) brings pressure to bear upon the makers of the SAT test. In a panic at the prospect of losing the California system's business, the College Board buckles, and the only important national measure of student aptitude is destroyed. The news is buried in the middle of the weekend papers. In short, we have allowed a minority of Leftist intellectuals to commandeer our culture. Will anyone fight back?

Announcement: My pieces on NRO will now include an e-mail address for comments. I can't promise to answer everyone who writes, although I'll try to respond to as many messages as I can. I'll do my best, however, to read all of your comments.

Mr. Kurtz is also a fellow at the Hudson Institute.

[toenail]

"I personally think this country would be a better place without Ivy League elitist Presidents."

Amen.

[PoisedWoman]

Love that Hudson Institute link. If you click on it and then click on "about Hudson," you'll see a photo of my alma mater. I actually lived in that gorgeous (but blurry) building for two years whilst attending the girl's school that owned the property years ago. It was the old Fletcher estate, the largest estate in Indiana ....

Fletcher was a banker and bigtime investor who tried to corner the market on sugar in the 1920s and failed. He had to off the estate as a result, and his wife and mother-in-law committed suicide in the manor house rather than face the ignominy of downward mobility. We were always trying to find the blood on the floor. Of course we failed, as they poisoned themselves, but we didn't know that then. LOL! What does this have to do with SATs? Probably nothing, except we got terrific education there, so good that some of us, including moi, got a pass on taking the SATs. We were already in like Flynn at virtually any college.

[A Navy Vet]

I've been wondering when this would happen. Paging Ward Connelly.

[speekinout]

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

I couldn't disagree more. Vocabulary is a sign of *reading*. Mostly in English, but anyone who knows Latin or another Western language understands enough to answer SAT questions.
The only "culture and upbringing" that affects this ability is the kind of "culture" that says it is unnecessary to read. And the people who want to drop the SATs are the ones who are supporting that "culture".

[Red Jones]

any standard must be changed to justify the current system or to hide its problems. That's been going on since 1970. The 'normal' unemployment rate in america pre-1967 was between 3.0 & 3.5%. If you throw out the 1930's and then look at the data going back almost 100 years it doesn't stray much from that 3.0 -3.5%. That was when nation-building was a good thing and it meant building the american nation. We waged the 'war on poverty', then poverty went up and stayed up & is just now getting back to 1965 standards. The unemployment rate in 1962 was 2.2%. Today the normal unemployment rate is 5.5% everyone knows. The standards must be changed to fit the results of the policy changes. When a clique is in charge and things go bad, that's what they do.

Sixty to eighty years ago our public school systems were the best in the world. Colin Powell at harlem where he grew up received an education of higher quality than over 90% of american kids today including private schools. Any casual observer of this situation understands that today's public schools don't hold a candle to yesterday's public schools, so the standards must be changed.

[xm177e2]

Leftists hate successful Jews, Asians, and whites. They hate anyone who's successful, they want to drag everyone down. They want to stop gifted children from excelling in school, they want to sabotage childrens' ability to read (they like "Whole Language" instead of phonics, and Bush had to push to include more reading instruction in Head Start programs). Leftists are against any sort of progress, any at all. They idolize leeches, parasites, and criminals, and demonize inventors, producers, and merchants. Unfortunately, they have a ton of influence when it comes to teaching children (just look at Haim Saban, who had the left-wing "Power Rangers" TV show, and now sits on the UC Board of Regents, look at all of the teachers unions, look at all of the local school boards controlled by teachers union goons, all of the left-wing wacko professors, etc.)

[FreedomPoster]

What does graduating from an Ivy League school have to do with getting an education?

Great article that addresses that topic here: Even a Yale Pedigree Could Leave One Unemployed. Neal Boortz's commentary on this story, that I posted on the thread, is a classic.

[Orion]

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

Sorry, but the SAT is not an IQ test, but a scholastic aptitude test (hence, the name). Vocabulary is a strong indicator of the amount of literature someone has consumed. Reading and language skills are fundamental to success in most colleges.

It takes more than William F. Buckley's 365 Words You Should Know desk calendar to pass the SAT.

[Orion]

If you can become governor, senator, and president with mediocre SAT scores, what exactly do the tests measure?

One does not have to be a scholar to be a senator, governor, or president. Patty Murray, Gary Locke, Major Owens, Shiela Lee, Maxine Waters, and Carol Mosley-Braun are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

[ancientart]

I wonder if the SAT scores of home-schooled students are part of the liberal concern here. I know one homeschooler who scored a perfect 1600. If this kind of thing is common, it would be making public school advocates a bit nervous, yes?

[Kenny Bunk]

Say, law-dog, I am with you there. The glib portion of the SAT's gives you Woody Allen-type people. Your high-scorin' ability to handle Math and Logical reasoning are what we need to offset the leftist policy wonks.

But whether you're talking Logic or Verbal, your SAT's have been dumbed down beyond belief. Go to your back issues of the Reader's Digest up in the attic. Started sliding down the IQ scale a while back, but the damn thing now reads as if Forrest Gump might now be the editor. The 8th Grade reading level of 1950 is College Grad stuff now! Jees, Louise, this is a serious dumbing down of the citizenry!

Guess what? You graduated High School after 1965? Darn good chance you are now fighting to pick up the basic knowledge every American needs to survive the onslaught of media mooseshirt. Our Public Schools, once the glory of New England, are now turning out idiots indistinguishable from the Masshole Kennedy voter to the South of us.

[Jeff Gordon]

Reminds me of an email my wife (a college professor) got from one of her colleagues...

* Teaching Math in 1950: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?

* Teaching Math in 1960: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

* Teaching Math in 1970: A logger exchanges a set "L" of lumber for a set "M" of money. The cardinality of set "M" is 100. Each element is worth one dollar. Make 100 dots representing the elements of the set "M." The set "C," the cost of production contains 20 fewer points than set "M." Represent the set "C" as a subset of set "M" and answer the following question: What is the cardinality of the set "P" of profits?

* Teaching Math in 1980: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

* Teaching Math in 1990: By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees? There are no wrong answers.

* Teaching Math in 2000: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $120. How does Arthur Andersen determine that his profit margin is $60?

[Red Jones]

in az we had a promising charter school movement a few years ago. It quickly captured 12% of the state's kids after being in place for a few years. So, that was 12% of the kids going to private schools that were some-funded by the state due to the kid attending. But a new crowd came into office that happened to be republican, but not the same republican crowd that facilitated charter school growth.

They increased requirements on the charter schools resulting in increased required spending by the charters. Then they tightened budget. Then they squandered over 500 million? dollars on new car & truck subsidy program for purchasers of new cars. People were getting 80% of the new car paid for by state of arizona (and feds of course) if only they installed a pollution control device. The car lots didn't have salespeople. They had long lines with clerks filling out forms as fast as possible instead for a few weeks until they shut it down. The republican governor & republican legislature actually approved that.

They also provided special tax credits for over 200 special business groups who simply didn't have to pay taxes because they had a friend in the legislature. So, you can imagine the budget problems developing. Now they're cutting again in the charter funding, but they're also cutting everywhere else. They're laying off prison guards & releasing prisoners. The public schools are actually being cut.

A conservative clique had responsible government, lots of money available to fund an alternative system per school choice and let it grow nice. A liberal clique squandered money in a pathological manner along the way to wrecking that flower growing in the garden.

This is the nature of the challenge I'm sure in many states. You've got to make the money available carefully and then spend it responsibly so that the public school system is never hurt, but an alternative system can grow. If you managed a company and the company were responsible for american education, then you would do this.

[Artist]

FYI bump.

[hoot2]

"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"

"wha chu mean willis?"