[Previous entry: "Beer"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Documenting Detroit"]

05/22/2005 Archived Entry: "SAT"

S.A.T.
After coming back from our road trip last week, I found at least 50 or so emails from our ever dominant listserv speaking about a latest S.A.T. brouhaha (something recently published in the New York Times). I keep pledging to myself not to think too much about it, but I still come back to this furor over and over again. The compositionists want to argue against the S.A.T.: "It doesn't demonstrate real writing." "We need tests which allow for revision!" "The test is too short." "It lets students make stuff up." Then come the debates about whether nor not folks really write in 20 or so minutes, who are these popular writers who dare to judge us, what can we do to respond? All because the S.A.T. is being framed as a device which, especially now that it has a specific writing section, will help students be better writers.
And here's where I find the biggest flaw in these arguments. No one, on either side of this so-called debate, seems to recognize or want to recognize that the S.A.T. is not a teaching device. It doesn't teach folks how to write, whatever the time frame allowed for or subject matter students write about. It is a device created in order to predict future ability in the general notion of the university (general, because not all universities are equal in what they offer or quality of offerings). Studies have challenged that claim (my own experience taking the damn thing challenges that claim), but regardless, there is one other factor ignored: not only does this test not predict future ability, it is designed to go along with a series of preparation courses run by Kaplan which are meant to show students how to "trick" the test. Those who can afford to take the prep courses do better than those who can't.
So, I wish my colleagues in the field would simply enact their own power in this game. The answer is not in how to formulate a better public presence and argue the claim better to a general, non-academic audience. No. The answer is to no longer recognize the test. We, the academics, give the Kaplan/College Board the power to operate. You don't like what they do? Take that power back. Imagine high school students no longer required to have S.A.T. scores for university acceptance. That's the end of the College Board and Kaplan.
If it were only so easy. To begin to think like that, however, may mean a lot of folks will lose their financial interests in this game. Pity. Besides the financial corruption, I do think that the S.A.T. serves as diversion (ah, here's the cult studies bit, no?) from real issues. It's easy to get folks riled up over something inconsequential so that they don't pay attention to issues that are pressing (American politics anyone? Islamic uproar over a Newsweek story anyone?). It’s also easy to ignore certain topics which make composition studies uncomfortable (new media, technology) so that concentration can be placed on the heavily familiar refrain of the S.A.T. That is a more serious and depressing pity.

When you suggest taking the power away from The College Board, the interesting thing to note is that this was already happening. In fact, the College Board supposedly incorporated the writing section because so may schools were going “optional” on the SAT's ass. http://www.fairtest.org/examarts/fall97/texascal.htm So this test is a counter-reaction to the possibility that we would take the power from them. Does this mean they are better organized and faster in their marketing decisions if not their scattershot assessment?

YES, they make executive decisions, and this is what makes me really worried because they're planned in their reductive thinking.

Posted by Richard @ 05/24/2005 01:25 AM EST

This is one of the better arguments i've seen concerning the SAT test. I took its lesbian sister (the ACT) and found it to be a useless test. Why? I was never presented with a challenge that assessed my abilities.

As for the writing portion: I can't and will never see the need for this. The argument you've created is along similar lines to those i've stated. There is no way this can assess a student's ability to write a cogent or even meaningful paper for the Freshmen writing classroom. More often than not at risk students slip through the cracks because someone meets the quota of commas, semicolons, and/or dashes the reviewer is looking for. Ugh.

One thing that I did notice lacking here and on the listserv concerns the economic chain that goes along with the university and standardized testing. For example, the ACTs at my alma mater were the standard bearer of where a student would be positioned. -17 or -18 would put a student in developmental math, english, and prior to 2003 reading. The university would add in a gross number of dollars from private and government sources by maintaining these developmental classes. It wasn't uncommon for this university or others to have a selection of students who were taking a standard load of remedials and that was it. Conceptually a student could spend 5-6 years in the university by having to take the juggernaut of remedials thus adding to its coffers. Also involved in this process were grad students who fundamentally made up 99% of the developmental teachers. Lower ACT/SAT scores strengthened our numbers and made room for reasonable assistantships. Just another part of the Academic Chain of Being I guess.

There's a lot more i'm sure I could write and I hope this adds something (outside of 4am ramblings).

Posted by Geoff @ 05/23/2005 05:44 AM EST