Abolition of SAT/ACT

My opponent has done a fabulous job of pointing out the major flaws of the SAT. However, I must still disagree with the proposed solution of abolition. It seems that my opponent would agree with me as well. In the last post, my opponent stated, "Also, schools should send a profile that shows average GPA with SD, average SAT scores, and other important statistica information that would give universities a better idea about where the applicants are coming from, as well as what they are being compared to when ranked." That does not sound like abolition to me. Before going any further, I would like to dispel the idea that I am advocating the distribution of points to females and minorities to offset the SAT scores. My point was simply that we can quantify SAT scores, and therefore we can see the gaps that exist. But again, I have to disagree with the conclusion that this means the SAT is what is flawed, and the SAT should therefore be abolished. What my opponent does realize - that the SAT is big business - should focus some of his thinking here. In a capitalistic society, demand is generally needed for supply. There is a reason SAT's are demanded, and that is due first to the needs of colleges, and second to the failure of primary and secondary schools to produce what colleges are looking for. Is it true that minorities don't do as well on the SAT? Yes. But why? The test is simply designed to provide colleges with information they need to help indicate success, and it does just that. As I pointed out in my last post, SAT scores are falsely accused of being poor predictors of college success. However, these scores are only predictors as to the colleges in which the majority will be successful, it does not inter-rate those who attend particular colleges. Therefore, as an entrance criteria only, the SAT is successful [1]. Therefore, SAT's are accurate measures of what colleges are looking for. We cannot expect the SAT format to change until the collegiate structure and requirement changes. Furthermore, primary and secondary schools are doing terrible jobs of training students. If the SAT is a measure of certain characteristics demanded by colleges, why aren't females and minorities trained just as well? Why does the burden fall solely on the SAT, an objective measure of aptitude? My opponent seems to think that primary and secondary schools have a fair curriculum and structure so that all races and genders get equal training. But this is not the case [2]. Teachers are even taught this as they obtain their undergraduate degrees. Educators know that the primary indicator of successful students is their socioeconomic status, even in the early primary years [2]. Part of this discrepancy is certainly the structure of schools. Children have different interests and learning styles, but schools typically cater to a narrow range of subjects and styles. However, this problem is greatly exacerbated by the way many schools are funded. During my undergraduate, our class watched a video of the Ohio school system. They showed schools ranging from one that had a hi-tech science and computer lab, to a school that had a dilapidated building and a coal furnace that plumed out clouds of smoke into the school. The nice school was of course in a rich, suburban, neighborhood, while the underprivileged school was in a poor area which also had more minorities. The culprit here wasn't SAT scores, it was school funding. Many schools are funded from real estate tax, which means that nicer neighborhoods will produce more taxes, and therefore better facilities as well as the ability to procure better teachers. This is just one of the many factors that goes into making minorities in particular highly susceptible to poor performance in school, as well as on SATs. But just as a physics test isn't flawed because a particular group fails it, so it is with the SAT. The SAT is meant to measure those who have certain abilities, and it's expected that those abilities were fostered by the system that is meant to produce college attendees. The problem does not necessarily lie in the test, but in the system. My greatest fear is that my opponent oversimplifies the issue. By pointing to the SAT as the problem, he is overlooking the areas that truly need emendation. The SAT is simply a test to measure the products of the system. It measures what the college institutions are looking for, and what the secondary schools produce. If anything, the SAT, a quantifiable and objective test, has pointed out measurably what many do not want to see. Abolishing the SAT would keep the school systems as biased as they are now, but it would allow us to move on in blissful ignorance. I would like to end by pointing out once again that schools are also producing varied results in their product, graduates. Someone who graduates in the top 25% of the class isn't really showing that much potential. But what if I told you that was a class of 24 at a private school? I suppose that would depend on what sort of private school it was. If it was college preparatory, then top 25% out of a small class is still very good. But if it were a more fundamentalist, backwoods school, even being the top student might not mean all that much. Even comparing public schools from different parts of a state or country can be difficult. As this article points out well [3], grades and accomplishments may look good on paper, but paper doesn't mean much. Schools have been dumbed down. Teachers can pass their kids in the class, but these kids can't fool objective, standardized measures and performance at the next level. I strongly agree with my opponent that the SAT needs to be revised. We do need to look at whether or not timing should be involved, and we need to see if there are ways to re-write or administer the test for bilingual students (unless part of what the colleges want to measure is the ability to read books and pass classes in English), etc. However, my opponent gives no credit where credit is due. The SAT is an accurate measure for student success within a particular college, and it is a great insight to help develop the whole picture ofa n individual and their education. Should it be so heavily weighted? Perhaps not. But abolished? Certainly not! Without objective measures like the SAT, we would have less evidence to show the discrepancies among different races and genders that are being fostered and perpetuated both at the secondary level, and the university level. The SAT is one great means of measure and accountability, and should be used as one piece of evidence for both. It's dissolution would prove detrimental for the multitude of reasons I have mentioned above. [1] http://abcnews.go.com... [2] http://www.epi.org... [3] http://209.189.226.235/stories/022307/schools_20070223038.php