Abolition of SAT/ACT

Defense of Opponent's Counterclaims: 1. While my opponent did not claim that I relied on anecdotal evidence, it certainly seems to be implied. There seems to be a poisoning of the well, in a certain sense, implanting this idea by its mere mention. While I certainly have included anecdotal evidence, this isn't simply casual observation. When your mechanic tells you what your car's problem is, doesn't his knowledge of his profession allow him a platform to provide insight? But even if you denied me this, I supplied my opponent with particular evidence that supports what I, a professional in the field of education, observe myself [1]. Even a cursory search on Google using the terms "grade inflation" and "grade discrepencies" produces a plethora of data beyond what I have given. And as far as I can tell, the only area where I have provided anecdotal evidence is in the area of purported grade inflation. I think this claim was intended to undercut a solid argument by implanting doubt in readers where none should exist. 2. My opponent claims that I contradicted myself. Perhaps I was unclear, but I wasn't contradictory. My initial statement was not made to emphasize what should be done as a resolution, but what could be done. The whole point was that because SAT scores are in fact objective and quantifiable, you (key word) could come up with some sort of measurable "fix." That doesn't mean the test as a whole is measuring what it should ideally measure, but it does point out that the abolition of the test would leave one objectively blind. 3. My opponent also seems to think that I have failed to address the issue of bias inherent in the SAT. But I have to ask if my opponent is really advocating diversity for diversity's sake? The SAT is not the problem here. The SAT simply measures what colleges want and what schools produce. If someone is qualified to be a lawyer, as lawyers are defined and needed in the United States, they have to pass the bar exam. Is it unfair that I can't be a lawyer because I can't pass the test due to my lack of aspiration to be a lawyer? Is it my fault my family didn't instill in my that desire or that I couldn't afford law school? It's unfortunate, but I still have to pass the bar if I want to be a lawyer, because of what the institution considers professionalism in that field. Now, I sympathize with the plight of the oppressed and the minorities in particular. I agree with my opponent that there is something wrong with a system that measures success and professionalism with such a narrow focus. It's unfortunate that the U.S. in particular is such a self-absorbed nation, that our English only policies prevent our appreciation of and facilitation of multilingual speakers. But this is not a problem with the SAT, it is a problem with the institutions. The SAT will change as the institutions do, which is what my opponent has been citing in his examples of Wake Forest University and other colleges. I think it's great that they are focusing on change. But does sch change really negate the need for objective measures like the SAT? Not at all. Summary of Con: 1. Grade inflation exists [1]. While class rank may still show how good one is comparatively to others in a particular demographic of schools (i.e. suburban, urban, etc), evidence is clear that the quality of student understanding has gone down while grades have gone up. The SAT continues to be an objective means of measurement in an ever-changing school system. 2. Disparities in education abound from birth. Parents who read more to their children raise the chance of their child's success. Families who have a higher socioeconomic status increase their child's chances for success. Families living in nicer communities or who can afford private, college preparatory schools have an unparallelled advantage over the rank and file in society. Does anyone honestly think that the SAT is the problem here? The problem is people don't like what the evidence shows: a huge disparity and bias exist in our society. How do we know this? Because we have objective tests such as the SAT to measure that. Getting rid of the SAT will not cause colleges to lower their standards and magically allow the poor or unfortunate to com streaming into their doors. The problem is an institutional one, not a testing one. I appreciate my opponent's advocacy, but I think it is misguided. 3. Even if the SAT were on equal grounds with numerous other factors, it's objectivity should be treasured. Abolition is not the answer, but rather reform. Because the SAT is objective, we can revise it until we get it to measure what it should be measuring. While we could wait decades to see the graduation rates of minorities, why not get near immediate feedback so we can affect change now, rather than wait until our data will no longer tell us how to react in a socially relevant way? 4. My opponent rightly pointed out that some colleges have gone SAT optional. The problem is, my opponent would like to abolish the SAT without giving it the chance to compete. This is the perfect atmosphere to let the SAT prove itself. If it is accurate, it will survive. If it is not, colleges are businesses, and they will drop the SAT for its uselessness. But to outright abolish it would be to take a chance with the institution that most directly affects the prosperity of our nation. There is no need to abolish the SAT, as the SAT will dissolve itself if it is unworthy. If we reform the institution of education to reshape its goals and ideals, we just may see that happen. But until that time, the SAT will be a beacon that highlights the disparities that need to be highlighted. 5. Finally, my opponent has continued to state the validity of test scores in predicting student success. I have pointed out that this is not he case at all [2]. While it may appear to be as he states, he is not accounting for the grouping that occurs. For instance, if Harvard's average range of SAT scores is 1400-1600, these scores most likely come from non-minority backgrounds (as my opponent would point out their scores would average lower). These scores are indicative of majority, suburban, potentially private schooled kids. What my opponent shows is that if we simply looked at the grades, these 1400-1600 kids would probably have "A's," which in his mind means that anyone with an "A" could survive at Harvard. But the "A" that correlates to a 1400-1600 on an SAT, representative of a child who went through college-prep school, is far different than an "A" from a kid who scores a 1000 in a coal burning, public school in downtown Cleavland. I highlighted this point in my last post when I referenced source [2] and their soccer team example, but I hope this has made it more clear. Conclusion: The SAT is a valid means of measurement, and one of the only objective means whereby we can revise tests, institutions, and make informed decisions. The SAT helps to fight grade inflation, and it helps us to see areas that need reform within the school system. While the SAT does need to be revised along with the institutions it tests and tests for, one must realize that it is merely an evidence of a problem not inherent to the test, but to the educational institution. Therefore, while I agree with my opponent's criticism's of the SAT, this should be a call for evidential, guided reform, which is made possible by the SAT itself. Thank you, Mestari, for your insight and passion for advocacy. I appreciate that, even in our disagreement (I have added a new source for those interested, but please don't pursue it until after voting, as this would be unfair to my opponent. It's a good read if you're honestly interested in pursuing this issue). [1] http://209.189.226.235/stories/022307/schools_20070223038.php [2] http://abcnews.go.com... [3]http://www.mindingthecampus.com...