Some good reads this week, but these two really stood out to me:
1. If Sports Ruled the World: this is a well written opinion piece about a topic I love — sports! But the crux of the piece is how sports reflect themselves in society and why we all (ok, some of us) crave the rules driven structure sports offers us. Is there an MA angle in here? A way to bring this idea -- be it in opinion piece or a sports feature?
2. What does the SAT test: this next edition will come out on October 22, right in time for SAT madness. You know you love the SAT!! How can we localize this idea? Maybe we can look at testing practices in MA classrooms? Are MA tests geared toward college style testing? or are there are antiquated practices that still linger? Are the testing practices of MA really pushing students to be critical thinkers? And what's the happy medium between critical thought and rote memorization? Ok, I may have gotten carried away with questions ....
17 comments:
SAT Testing:
I thought this article was very interesting, and at first I couldn't believe that someone takes SAT tests for a living. That sounds awful to me, but hey, if he likes it. Anyway, I thought it was very interesting about the differences between the SAT and the ACT tests. It would be interesting to ask students at MA which they do better on. I also found it ridiculous that the SAT is made so hard, and that is one of the main tickets into college. I thought it was also really unfair, because it's much easier to beat if one has a tutor, or some fancy SAT prep like the Princeton Review or something, and that costs money. It follows that richer kids will then get better scores over poor kids who are smart, but couldn't pay the money for the prep work. I also thought it was unfair in testing students because as he said in the article, students who are "brilliant but slow" won't get good test scores, and won't be let into good colleges even though they may be smarter than kids who just have good test-taking abilities. I think this is an unjust way to judge kids.
I didn't really know why that part at the end was there about why kids don't want to talk about their day at school at the end of the day, but I thought it was really interesting and I found it to resonate very truthfully. I had no idea a study like this had been done, and I found it to be very true about how kids spend eight hours at school and three hours doing homework, and at the end of the day, the last thing they want to talk about is school.
SAT's: Jackson Wolf
Let me start this off with a clear explanation. I hate the SAT with almost every inch of my heart. In addition to being no indication of a student's intelligence or what they may contribute to society or even a college environment, it is particularly inflammatory and hurtful to students. Although this is the primary problem, there are countless issues with the test. As the author of the article mentioned, students come from a variety of backgrounds. Many kids that may have little to contribute to a college or a community are valued significantly higher than underprivileged solely because of an arbitrary number designating the academic worth of a student. I thought the portion of the article on the ACT was also useful. It is a great option for many students that do poorly on the SAT, but have been/are considered to be good test takers. The ACT is an option that should be discussed more widely in the MA community. Most of the flaws in the ACT are based on the inherent cut-throat and divisive nature of standardized testing. Aside from the underlying disgust I have for the SAT and the College Board in general, I enjoyed the article. The author eloquently discussed many of the things I dislike about the SAT, and for that, I was glad. The way that the article was written was a bit questionable to me. The article randomly drifted off towards the end about. I don't know if it was just me, but I saw absolutely zero relevance in the section on why kids don't ever say anything about their days. Although I felt that the author spoke well about a legitimate issue, it didn't relate to the SAT.
If Sports Ruled the World:
I thought it was funny that the author would describe the ethics of sports refereeing as being more fair and definite than the rules of politics when in my opinion they are incredibly similar. The Serena Williams incident is just the very beginning when it comes to referees that allow their opinions to get in the way of the game. Baseball umpires always have different strike zones and football refs have been known to physically interfere with plays and make visibly incorrect calls, not to mention the controversy over NBA refs betting on their own games. It isn't to say that every ref and politician have an agenda, but sports definitely does not represent a perfect world. However, the rules that govern sports, even when they are ignored, provide a good foundation that could be applied to politics or other areas in a similar way.
I think this article could be applied in a different light on the MA teachers and coaches regarding how their methods are intended to teach students to think or work in new ways...
SAT Testing:
I thought that the article was very indicative of the problems surrounding SATs, ACTs, and frankly, most of the college admissions process. As the Princeton Review tutor said, these tests are only a way to see how quickly people can take tests and show very little of a person's actual intelligence. These tests are tailored to a primarily upper class of people who can afford expensive tutoring and also people who are just naturally quick at test taking. It hinders a person's ability to dig deep into writing questions, which is unfortunate as best writing never comes from the first draft, or to check math problems.
Also, colleges get no sense of what type of person or learner the test taker is by a random number. The only advantage to these type of tests is that they relate to the type of environment you get in late night cramming for college tests, as both are high stress environments. The truth is that our generation is doing way too much these days trying to improve college transcripts and impress college admission boards. The whole system needs some kind of reform to really appreciate students for who they are, and not be so results oriented.
I think it would be interesting to compare and contrast studying and test taking strategies and see who is taking which tests.
SAT testing:
As someone who has gone through the process of taking the SAT and ACT and being tutored for the two test, a lot of this article seemed very repetetive. I had heard most of the information that it was presenting before. That being said, I completely agree with the article in that standardized tests are a completely false indicator of a student's true intelligence. However, I have found while applying to colleges that many of the schools that I am looking into realize this as well. Many more schools are becoming either SAT optional or admit that a students SAT scores do not hold that much importance in thier application. It seems to me that the fact that SAT scores are highly unreliable is widely known, at least in liberal arts colleges. I think that because of this SATs may eventually become obsolete.
As Jen said, however, SATs seem to highlight class differences. I know that personally tutoring helped me a great deal in improving my SAT score, because, like the article said, beating the test is really about discovering the patterns. Many students however are not fortunate enough to have this option. This is a horribly unfair advantage. Furthermore, many students who cannot afford tutoring will be applying to public institutions, where SATs hold much more importance. This inconsistency is something that needs to be adressed in our education system.
-Olivia Powers
Two years ago, I wrote a feature on how standardized tests are the epitome of UN-standardized. They by no means allow for equal performance from everybody, mainly because of the socioeconomic status reasons people have previously mentioned.
What we haven't covered however, like Jackson mentioned, is the benefit of the ACT. Like Jackson, I think the College Board is a horrid organization dedicated to collecting as much money as they can while making kids feel awful about themselves. On the other hand, I have found the ACT to be much easier to conquer with little prep and fewer panic attacks. However, MA barely ever mentions the ACT. We administer the official PSAT, but never even recommend students to take the ACT. I am so thankful I did on a whim - it tests on things I have repeatedly encountered learning at MA.
I know Sara wrote a piece in the past on SAT vs ACT, but it was not that in-depth and I think we could take a new angle. I am curious to see why the college counselors don't push the ACT, especially since I think it better tests what MA students are taught to do. You also are not penalized for guessing like on the SAT, so if you don't finish you still have hope of racking up extra points.
Another point to examine in this issue is timing of tests. I have found most MA teachers are willing to give you a little extra time to finish quizzes and tests if you need it, and we have a very generous extended time program serving a huge number of students. However, on the SAT or ACT, this is just another example of UN-standardized. I understand people with extended timing often have learning disabilities or are slower at reading, processing, etc., but there is certainly a spectrum. Where is the line that means you can all of a sudden get 50% more time to finish a standardized test (where time is HUGE element) than someone else? Extended time seems to be a necessary program, but I definitely think it has its flaws - especially considering you can't really get 'extended time' once you are out in the real world.
What does the SAT test?
A lot of people feel that the SAT is unfair because it does not accurately measure a student’s subject ability. Personally, I believe that the SAT does its job: assessing how a student performs under time pressure. There are many situations in one’s lifetime where slow and steady will not win the race. Performance under time pressure is just as important as having actual knowledge. A student’s grades, on the other hand, indicate the student’s subject ability. With these two pieces of information, colleges can accurately assess a student’s academic capabilities. To use that “slacker” as an example, the colleges will see that yes, he can perform under time pressure, but that he is also a lazy bum.
The SAT certainly has its faults, but it does a good job of objectively measuring the capabilities of students across all schools, both private and public. Different schools have different standards for grades, which makes picking out the “best eggs” a challenge for colleges. I cannot think of a better way than using a standardized test to compare students from different backgrounds with vastly different educational experiences. Even so, people have to remember that the SAT is only one piece of evidence that colleges use in assessing a student. Grades, essays, letters of recommendation, personal interviews, and other accomplishments combine with the SAT to present a more complete picture of a college applicant.
This article also does a very good job of distinguishing between the SAT and the ACT. As most colleges accept SATs or ACTs, it seems that it is up to the student to decide which test suits that student the best. Part of applying to colleges is “playing the game”––presenting oneself in the best light.
If Sports Ruled the World:
As much as I liked the premise of the author's comparison between the sporting world and the real world, the idea wasn't carried out well. I think part of this has to do with what Andrew commented on, which is that the sports world does not really operate on a set base of rules or code of ethics at all. All of the examples that Andrew brought up are valid, and the higher up you look in pro sports the truer it rings. When I say higher up I mean at the executive level, where owners routinely practice anti-competitive business practices, GMs will tamper with other team's prospects, and steroids scandals will be slipped under the rug. You can't compare rules at the basic levels of sports to large-scale political rules and practices, simply because the two are not analogous. If you must, compare the executive level in our nation's politics to sports' executive level. Unfortunately, the comparison does not hold true.
SAT (just had to comment on this one):
Here's my deal with the SAT: I do relatively well on it. And no its not because of prep classes or things like that (though my private school education background might have do something with it) because I quit out of all of the prep classes that I tried to take. The only way to study for the SAT (in my mind) is to take a bunch of practice tests. And when I say a bunch of practice tests, I mean a ton of practice tests. That's really the only way, because prep classes can only get you so far. So while I certainly understand the socioeconomic discrepancies that the SAT promotes, I still feel as if students can perform well on it without shelling out $20K for an expensive prep program. End of Rant #1.
Rant #2: MA does not prepare students for standardized tests. And quite frankly, that's how it should be. The SAT represents all that is wrong with the American educational system today: it rewards rote memorization and quick thinking over long, deep, provoked mental stimulation and thought. There's a reason innovation in the US has slowed considerably over the past 10 years or so: our school system does not require or promote it. And, as much as the SAT or ACT would like us to believe, innovation does not come in 25-minute bursts, nor is is divided into sections. And to the proponents of rote memorization, please get over it. This is the 21st century. We have the internet. Memorization is now nearly obsolete, and will be completely obsolete as soon as we figure out how to get computer chips into our brains. But that won't happen if we have to keep memorizing stuff. End of Rant #2.
Rant #3: This one is a little more big picture but: do we overestimate the power of the SAT? I believe we do. Here's how I see it: if you are a good, perhaps great student, you are going to get a good score on either the SAT or the ACT. Maybe not a 2400 or a 36, but a decent score. For most colleges (including some of those godforsaken Ivies), THIS IS ALL YOU NEED. Because at a certain point, you just have to have faith in the fact that college admissions directors will look past numbers and see the real person. This is especially true for the Ivies, because they expect, at that level, that all of their students have achieved some type of academic proficiency in either grades or test scores. That's a give for those schools. From there, they have to pick out the kids that are either extremely well-rounded or dedicated to a certain cause in order to create a diverse, engaged, and promising student body. One of my best friends put it to me this way (albeit bluntly), "Once you get to college, no one gives a $%&$ what your SAT scores were. If they were significant, employers and other people would want to see them. But they're not."
So that's my three-part rant on the SATs. Whether or not that pertained to the questions asked after the article, I have no idea. As for the article itself, it was a good read up until the last section that Jackson commented on. That's when the author lost me.
SAT Testing:
I thought this was an interesting article that showed that even the best colleges and organizations have not found a test that can show exactly how intelligent someone is. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. A person cannot be judged eligible for a college or job just from how many answers they got right on a nearly 4 hour exam that forces their mind to recall sometimes random tidbits of information. I also thought it was ironic that even someone who has dedicated their life's work to studying this test still doesn't believe that it is an accurate measurement of a student's ability. Then, I must ask, why do we take the thing? Why can't our eligibility be determined by our grades, comments from our teachers, and our applications themselves? Also, if these tests have been deemed so inadequate, how and why do colleges use them when deciding which students to accept to their schools?
Aside from my obvious frustration with the content of the article, I thought that it was to the point and well organized. However, like Nish and Jackson, I have no idea what the part at the end about student's talkativeness with their parents had anything to do with the topic.
Jamie M.
SAT:
I found it really interesting to hear that parts of the ACT can be more challenging than the SAT, since I've always heard that the SAT was the more prestigious test. I also have heard that most people on either coast take the SAT, while more people take the ACT in the middle of the US. Regardless of which is more difficult, there seem to be some major flaws with the system, especially relating to time constraints. A shocking thing I learned, was that they intentionally make each section difficult to finish; even more shocking was the news that if a brilliant student took the SAT, but worked slowly, they would get an average score. While the system may be fundamentally flawed, I understand that colleges need a benchmark to compare applicants. That being said, the tests seem to favor those who have the money to spare on tutors or review books. While standardized testing isn't an ideal part of the application process, it's very difficult to think of an new system that would remedy the current problems, so for the time being they are a reality.
This article does an excellent job at using sports to model rules and their function in our society. In sports, people strive to create as objective a game as possible using rules. Rules make sports interesting and provide motivation. Who wants to compete with people who are using illegal substances, like steroids, to boost their performance? Who wants to watch a sporting event where the referee makes arbitrary and capricious calls or where the rules change mid-game?
The difference between sports and our society is not the presence or absence of rules, but how defined the rules are. The rules in sports are more straightforward and less open to interpretation than those of society because sports are intentionally far more limited than the real world. Nevertheless, both institutions are founded on rules that allow them to exist without falling into complete chaos.
Take the realm of politics, for example. For the most part, our government tries to be a government of laws––or rules––rather than one of individual opinion. The United States Constitution and its Amendments are the basis of our political system. These “rules” are only supposed to be changed in clear and understandable ways, although in some cases they are stretched to unintended interpretation. There exists constant tension between those who wish to interpret the rules based on what the rules say and those who wish to interpret the rules based on what they feel those rules should say.
The trick is to find a balance between adhering to the rules and to making exceptions for good reasons. If one goes too far to either side of the spectrum, the system collapses. When one takes the rules and stretches them to make them mean anything that one wants, those rules cease to have meaning and society loses the protection of law. On the other end of the spectrum, a social structure lacking “wiggle room” will cause people to seek freedom through rebellion.
First and foremost, lets establish that Edward Carroll is an absolute and complete lunatic. Despite his attempts of convincing the readers of his sanity, I am sure that he has lost it completely. Why else woould anyone take such a soul crushing test for a living?
Anyways, The article, thought, was extremely reader friendly. The info was presented in an accessible and convenient way, and the questions were those of typical high school students/ SAT takers. As for the content,I have been telling people forever that the SAT simply measures ones familiarity with such a test. How this measures ones possible success in college, I dont know, because although I have never been in college, I doubt that basic math will be presented in such a convuleted way regularly. In terms of MA, I know, from talking to students outside of MA, that MA scores extremely high on the SAT compared to other schools, but students often take the test twice or even 3 times. When are we satisfied? Why do we take it as such a big thing when we constantly criticize its practicality and usefulness. Is this not conformity blended with hypocrisy at its finest? With Juniors preparing to take the SAT and seniors looking back and thinking, "Wait why did I just do that?" having already took it, this would be a very timely and relevant article in the November issue.
Marshall
If Sports Ruled the World
I really enjoyed seeing the insight that the writer had on Serena's blow up. As a big tennis player, the whole conflict was very intriguing to me, and I was so angry that I had missed it live. Although the referee's call greatly affected the entire match, it is important that officials abide by the rules under all circumstances. Although there has been much controversy with so many different referees and their decisions, it is important that they make a call based on their vision of the play and their interpretation of the rules. Besides the case in the NBA, the officials are not calling a game for self-benefit. The naked eye can all see so much, and unfortunately there is always human error even with referees. The fact that they made the wrong call doesn't mean they want one side to win, but that they simply couldn't see to clearly.
If referees didn't enforce some controversial rules of the game, then World Cup referees wouldn't have to go into hiding for weeks after the tournament, and Serena would have been able to play out those two last points. However, with out these laws there would be no game, so dealing with their affects is necessary.
SAT
Right after the SSAT was over and I thought all my troubles would go away, I learned that the SAT would now be the test that I would dread taking for the next couple years. I thought it was really cool to hear from an expert on the tests about her opinions of the test and whether it really was a good test. I am miserable at test taking and I feel that there is no need for this one extremely hard test to be such a crucial part of our applications to college. The article shows a countless amount of negative views and facts about the test which makes me wonder why we use it.
The SAT and ACT can give advantages to students who are taught at great schools like MA, which does not make it fair at all. Although it may seem a little radical, would a complete boycott of the tests to finally exterminate their terrible being do anything?
"If Sports Ruled the World:"
I found this article interesting in that it shed light upon a key factor in all of our lives that is sometimes pushed to the side - structure. A majority of us have a structured life: we wake up, go to school, come home, do homework, eat dinner, and repeat the process over again. While this is routine, there are numerous instances in which this pattern could potentially be "broken."
We follow patterns; however, Henninger explains that the real excitement surrounding sports is not just the intensity of the game itself, but also, a distraction in which rules cannot be broken. Everyday life is frequently broken up with new issues, activities, and occurrences, so as students, we frequently see the rules being bent (not putting our full effort into homework, leaving practice early to get a head-start on homework, etcetera.) Rarely in our lives do we see something in which the rules cannot be bent whatsoever. This new slant on sports was really captivating to me as I had never really taken into consideration the fundamental thrill behind athletics.
"What does the SAT Test?"
As pointed out, the common myth surrounding the two prominent standardized tests is that the ACT is easier. I found it interesting that this tutor from the Princeton Review actually found it to be just as hard if not more challenging than the SAT due to its questions involving visual cues.
Being someone who has both visual processing difficulties and extra-time, I find it intriguing that a brilliant person could receive an average score due to time constraints. While it seems all too unfair that a constrained time limit and three sections should determine a surprising amount of your acceptance/rejection to college, it is what colleges need in order to determine your aptitude for academics and test-taking. But, as Sarah T mentioned earlier, where is the line drawn for a student who qualifies for extra time? I know I had to go through rigorous tests and sessions to be applicable for it, but sometimes I do not always need it.
The section at the end of the article was a odd to me, seeing as it had little to do with standardized tests. Though I know my parents could relate to it, seeing as I don't enjoy telling them all about my school day, I felt it drifted away from the piece and was a distraction from the "core" or "essence" of the article.
Sports
As a tennis player who followed the US Open and watch Serena blow up on national TV, I really enjoyed the piece on how sports are so much more structured than real life. I personally think that the "Let them play" approach should have been used in this situation, and this can be applied to everyday life as well. How often do people illegally download music, knowing that it is a felon? Yet people get away with it. While I agree with Mr. Henninger that the sports world is mostly more structured than the real world, the "Let them play" idea truly caries over into other aspects of reality, including our life at MA. Students at MA break school rules all the time but can get away with it. However, every so often, both at MA, in the outside world, and in the sports world, someone like Serena is made an example of.
On a side note, it was also intriguing to me how little faith the author seemed to have in human nature. He seemed to truly believe that the world would be better off it was run by tight-knit rules with no allowance for creativity or independence.
Post a Comment