This past weekend, a few of my friends took the dreaded 'ACT', and their reactions were generally quite similar, the theme, " I didn't have enough time", and "It was really hard" were heard frequently. This got me thinking, is having a standardized test to judge a student's college worth really all that good? I say this because every high school in the U.S is different, and they all provide a different approach to education. Is it fair to insitute a test with things that possibly some students haven't covered, or haven't covered adaquetly enough. Another issue could be having to prepare for the ACT or SAT along with regular classes, (I haven't touched my ACT prep book since I bought it in September) Regular school work is hard enough, and having to worry about something like the ACT is quite a daunting thought. I understand that it is a good way to judge all students on the same playing field, but does it have to be so hard, and weighted so heavily? Should colleges focus more on things like class rank, regular grades, and extracuriculars?
I am against standardized testing, but compared to the SAT, the ACT is better. The SAT is based on fact-knowledge whereas the ACT is based on application of a series of rules (whether grammatical or mathematical). This helps to make the test more fair. It tests the ability of students to interpret the rules of a certain subject as apposed to knowing what year Lincoln was elected in. Though each school may have different focuses on the rules, they are much more easy to learn than a series of facts.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis test allows for students from across the nation to be evaluated on the same playing field. School A, has a different grading scale then school B. And School C has a different grading scale as well. At school A, students have different teachers, then School B. They may take classes that are easier then a student at another school, and receive a better grade because their class is not as fast-paced and accelerated as another class. All kids have different experiences, and grades can be tricky. How does a 3.4 G.P.A. at New Trier, compare to a 3.8 G.P.A. at Evanston? This is where the ACT is advantageous. It allows for all students nation-wide to take the same exam, and everybody can be more fairly assessed for college admissions.
ReplyDeleteThe ACT and standardized tests in general have always been something that I've found a little bit unnecessary. Of course, it makes it easier for colleges and schools to get an idea of a student's intelligence level, but I also know plenty of really smart kids who just aren't good test-takers. I've always done well on standardized tests, so I guess I shouldn't be bashing them, but I just don't understand when these kinds of timed test-taking skills are going to be applied in the real world. If we all had unlimited time on the ACT, I'm sure tons of people would do a lot better.
ReplyDeleteA person's intelligence can't be measured in a single number, nor can it really be "measured" at all... I understand how these kinds of tests make admissions processes easier for colleges, but what does one number really say about a student's personality, work ethic or passion?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleterevised a bit
ReplyDeleteI really dislike standardized testing. The strategy for the ACT is basically 'don't think too much.' Thinking deeply about questions is detrimental to your score and time (because the questions don't require deep thought), while strategies like word-matching and quickly skimming give you an edge. And the writing portion is utterly generic. The way kids prepare for these tests is practicing uncritical thought and test-taking skills, which should not be the focus of our education.
There's also the idea that a standardized test is truly impartial. But scores are often a stronger indicator of one's economic background than intelligence. Also, while it takes necessary logical skills to look at a lot of information and extract only what's important, logic skills alone shouldn't be what helps determine intelligence.
High ACT scores obviously don't translate to stupidity, but the score rewards people with specific types of skills the most, while people with different strengths are less recognized. As a result I think a less diverse crowd of people are selected for colleges with higher 'standards'. I'd say the idea of a 'level playing field' is completely inaccurate, possibly even the opposite. While the standards are the same, the means that help people reach those standards are quite unequal.
Standardized testing isn't bad in every respect-- it's efficient, to say the least. But we give it too much meaning.