You are making assumptions, which are not only unsupported, they are downright insulting.
There are a long list of very good reasons, with a good amount of factual support that people and colleges have given to support colleges going TO. You may not agree with them, but you should, at very least, read them before dismissing them in such an insulting manner.
Moreover, that is a logical fallacy - an ad hominem attack. You do not respond to arguments or statements, but attack a personâs background and character.
TY, so no they havenât retested. I was curious if the time spent helping others also raised their own scores. My student has been invited to tutor multiple times but we keep ignoring the emails since there are only so many hours in the day (and my student wonât even take time to prep for themself.)
Every time I hear that most high scorers are in upper income groups therefore testing is unfair I think itâs one excuse to go TO. I understand that but do not agree.
Many feel that the primary objective of college is to establish equal social outcomes. I do not feel that way.
They enjoy the tutoring, that was the motivation. Itâs only about 3 hours a week. For their own prep, my kids found the Kahn academy practice helpful. They hit the scores they wanted and did not feel a need to chase a higher score.
I donât think that itâs about equal social outcomes, but about equitable social opportunities. I also think that the SATs, as they are, are biased and should be replaced with something else.
First off - I have not made a logical fallacy nor ad hominem attack. I have seen first in the CRT movement the wholesale discounting of the concept of merit. If you donât believe me, read the American Bar Associations âLesson on CRTâ. Go have a look at what it says about merit. And as for the Equity brigade - have a look at the Equitable Math Framework which is attempting to inform Californiaâs approach to math instruction. And while youâre looking through it - show me where it advises more homework or effort to improve performance on standardized tests. For that matter tell us what it says about correct answers at all. And all of that political pressure dumbs down curriculums and strives to make college acceptance more of a lottery to achieve 'Equity". And getting rid of the SAT/ACT is one component.
It is not not cut and dried, nor does it need to be. The issue is that they are often worded in a roundabout wat and the SATs use languages that one has to learn. The fact that experience in answering these particular type of questions increases the score supports this. They also recycle questions, etc. A more equitable test would be more like the ACT but with a more appropriate time limit. Iâm sure that there are people who can figure out a test that will be able to measure how well a student knows and can use the material that they learned in high school. I donât think that the SAT does that. But it will be equitable, meaning that two students who have the same mastery of the material will scores around the same. I donât think that that is true for the SATs at this point.
No, then what is this?
You also seem to be using terminology out of context:
Critical Race Theory is an academic theory, not a âmovementâ, so your statement makes no sense whatsoever. What next, âthe Theory of Gravity movementâ?
Can you provide a citation? Or, better yet, tell me what they are saying. I am not going to do your work for you. You want to make a point, do it. Donât tell me to do it for you, itâs your claim, and I have no reason to accept it, and no reason to search for quotes that support your claim. I am not your research assistant
What is the âEquity Brigadeâ? Which part of the armed forces do them belong to? I never heard of them, but my military service wasnât in the USA.
Iâve told you - I am not doing your work for you. You claim that it says something, show me.
You mean the pressure to erase anything that somebody finds offensive from History Books, like slavery or genocide? Perhaps you mean the pressure to erase evolution from biology textbooks, or the pressure to erase paleontology and geology from classrooms? I agree, all of that has seriously dumbed down the classroom.
Then there is the pressure to deny sex education to teens, which increases teen pregnancies, and nothing destroys a kidâs academics like having to carry a baby. Or perhaps the pressure to include religion in school instead of academics, that definitely makes teaching more difficult.
Yes, there has been a lot of political pressure on schools.
Can you quote any college or university system that is saying that they want a lottery system, or is this your opinion? Can you explain how that works? There are 18 factors used in admission on the Common Data Set, so which of these are the result of a lottery? GPA? Class rigor? Extracurricular activities? Iâm curious.
Google is your friend. I gave you the term American Bar Association lesson on CRT. Youâre not âdoing my workâ by having a look at what they have to say about merit. But if youâre not willing to check it out for some reason, the bottom line is the think very little of merit. It is clear to me that CRT is not some arcane mysterious obtuse course taught at colleges. But rather it is part of a political movement designed to achieve equal outcomes in part by tearing at the very notion of merit. Itâs a call to action for attorneys. But nice try. Itâs the common fig leaf.
As for pressure on schools - I am referring to cancelling advanced math classes for elementary students because some racial groups grasp the material quickly are are ready for greater challenge. Such advanced classes have been tarred as âtrackingâ by the DEI geniuses. So better to institute a âNo Child Gets Too Far Aheadâ policy. Better to complain about âwell who needs calculus any way?â And as we have seen âLetâs cancel the SAT altogetherâ.
SAT, ACT , applicants can usually choose the one they prefer. Our S chose SAT , our D chose ACT. Both did well after trying out some of the free practice tests. Both seemed pretty rudimentary.
The discontinued SAT subject tests (formerly Achievement tests) were the College Boardâs attempt to offer subject matter aligned tests for non-advanced high school subjects.
AP tests are subject matter tests for more advanced level subjects.
So obviously, what you mention above has been done. But they did not become mainstream for college admission purposes for whatever reason.
After 1300 posts itâs surprising that some seem to ignore or not understand that these tests are achievement based, and there are many US students who are receiving below average K-12 schooling. Meaning these tests are not rudimentary to some of those students.
Does that mean these students canât succeed in college and in their careers? Of course not, and there is significant data that show that.
CRT seems to be mostly mentioned by opponents as a bogeyman to oppose being taught in schools, which it is not other than obscure specialty electives in some colleges.
If that were true, @ucbalumnus , there would be no objection to the state laws banning it in K12 schools. Since there is vociferous objection by some, I think we can safely conclude that yes, CRT is taught in some public K12 systems.
Except that the state laws in question are vaguer and broader about what is disallowed, meaning that the laws and enforcers may define something as âCRTâ to be banned that really is not CRT.
I agree that K-12 is the problem, and have said that dozens of times on CC.
Some states and their public colleges do feel it is their responsibility to ensure their stateâs citizens are able to get a college education even though they had a sub-standard K-12 educationâŠsomething also talked about at length on many CC threads.