Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardize

I noticed several flaws in my opponent's first observation. He mentions that the tests "bring forth no problems as long as they follow a certain guideline. " He is assuming that these tests are given with no guideline to follow whatsoever. What he fails to realize is that these tests are used to measure a student's understanding of the material they are being tested on based off the standards that state has for its test topics (math, English, writing, etc). Another point that my opponent failed to realize is that these tests ARE, in fact, used to graduate, as you can see from the resolution (standardized exit exams). A student must take these to show the state that they are competent enough in the subjects tested, and if so, will be able to contribute to society in a beneficial manner. The mere fact that my opponent either forgot or neglected to inform you all of this information shows a lack of preparation in his argument. In observation 2, a basic understanding of what the test actually is, a standardized test used to graduate (exit exam) that tests core areas of knowledge, is absent in my opponent's argument. Again, my opponent is assuming that is a useless exam, whereas it is used to show the state in which the student is being tested in that the student in competent enough to graduate and operate in the real world. Also, my opponent's understanding of standardized is flawed, for he believes that means it must be taken across America, whereas it only means it has a set pass/fail level, say 50%, which a student must pass on all tests being administered; you receive a lower score than 50%, you fail. Simple. With both observations, my opponent has neglected to research the test and how it is used in society, showing that he has no understanding of the test, yet he argues to change it. In my opponent's first contention, my opponent says that many citizens of America who follow careers in construction, public service (waiting) and more only need skills which best service them in their occupation. According to pro's argument, construction workers only need to know how to follow orders and use tools. I find this to be a gross understatement of the knowledge that a construction worker requires. A great understanding of geometry is integral in several fields of construction. Can you imagine your house built by someone who couldn't calculate the length of wood that he or she would need for the slant of your roof in relation to the rest of the house? (For examples on uses of math on a construction site, click the link: . http://www.constructionknowledge.net...) The other example that my opponent uses to prove his point is also seriously flawed. As with the construction worker, my opponent assumes that the person only needs remedial, servile skills and intelligence to complete the task at hand (courtesy, diligence, physical stamina), when this is just not the case. A skill which must be demonstrated constantly is the ability to perform basic mathematical equations to calculate customer bills, who is paying what, and how much tip he should probably be receiving. While in the specific examples science is not necessary, my opponent has left out the other aspects of the test that are relevant to these jobs, such as reading and writing. You cannot base your argument to get rid of something based off of two parts of the test when there are so many more being tested. I also want to point out that my opponent assumes that it is the high school dropouts who take these jobs, which is degrading to say the least, and associates the dropping out to the exit exams with no proof whatsoever. As someone who has taken them, I can attest to the fact that they are used to test your basic understanding of the material being tested. He makes it sound like these tests are astronomically impossible! My opponent then goes on to state that the knowledge on the exam is useless, which, if you have ever seen the exam, is a completely ignorant thing to say. Reading, writing and math (on the test in Nevada, we test in math, science, reading and writing, but most other states have more topics on their tests), last time I checked, were important in everyday life. And I'm lost as to how it "aid efficiency" if we just give someone a diploma after their senior year. What if the person has sailed through school on Ds? Do you think that person is qualified to work for a decent company just because he passed school? In contention 2, my opponent thinks that a diploma is not necessarily required for acceptance into a college, and only the SAT scores matter. Well, first off, as a senior in high school, I know that SAT and ACT scores are very important and that you would want to take a different exam depending on the school you want to go to, but schools will first look for a diploma to show that you have graduated from high school. I can pass the SAT and ACT with flying colors, but if I fail to graduate from high school, I just can't go to college. (Here is the admissions page for UNLV, and I highly recommend the first line: . http://www.unlv.edu...) In the counter plan, my opponent wants the tests to be used as an entry exam into college. As I stated before, the tests are used to see if you can even graduate, much less go to college, plus, we already have tests for that very purpose: SAT and ACT; he even says "another SAT. " What's the point? We already have a perfectly good exam to take, so why take another? Also, happiness isn't measured by the amount of compatible jobs. Just because I have one doesn't mean I'm happy, so that makes your argument presumptuous and flawed.