Abolish Sat
In “Abolish the SAT” by Charles Murray, Murray argues that there's no benefit in keeping SAT test, thus it should be demolished. The author supports this point by comparing and analyzing the relationship between high school grades, SAT scores, and freshman grades in college, stating how the meaning of “SAT” has changed over time, and stating that wealthy kids have advantages of getting high scores on SAT than those who are poor.
Murray states “Again, the SAT was unnecessary; it added nothing to the forecasts provided by high school grades and achievement tests,” after analyzing the relationship among high school grades, SAT scores, achievement test scores, and freshman grades in college. He came to this conclusion because the achievement test did slightly better than SAT for predicting how one would perform in college and because he found out SAT was not excelling in any way for predicting one's ability to perform well in college.
Secondly, Murray announces that the meaning of SAT has changed. As Murray states “Originally, the point of the SAT-whose initials, after all, stood for Scholastic Aptitude Test” and “College Board abandoned aptitude altogether and changed the name of the SAT to “Scholastic Assessment Test,” the meaning has changed even though the initials are still “SAT.” Aptitude means “inherent ability,” but in the 1960s, the concept of aptitude has changed because the “temper of the times be interpreted as the fault of the tests that produced them.” It showed ethic and class differences, and it was favored of upper-middle-class white kids, which cannot be a good test.
While wealthy kids have the opportunity to go to SAT coaching schools such as Princeton Review or Kaplan, poor kids don't have the choice to higher their SAT score. Even if students have the ability to learn and perform well in college, many of them won't try hard because they know it is nearly impossible for people that didn't study for SAT to get good scores. As Murray says, “if
Murray states “Again, the SAT was unnecessary; it added nothing to the forecasts provided by high school grades and achievement tests,” after analyzing the relationship among high school grades, SAT scores, achievement test scores, and freshman grades in college. He came to this conclusion because the achievement test did slightly better than SAT for predicting how one would perform in college and because he found out SAT was not excelling in any way for predicting one's ability to perform well in college.
Secondly, Murray announces that the meaning of SAT has changed. As Murray states “Originally, the point of the SAT-whose initials, after all, stood for Scholastic Aptitude Test” and “College Board abandoned aptitude altogether and changed the name of the SAT to “Scholastic Assessment Test,” the meaning has changed even though the initials are still “SAT.” Aptitude means “inherent ability,” but in the 1960s, the concept of aptitude has changed because the “temper of the times be interpreted as the fault of the tests that produced them.” It showed ethic and class differences, and it was favored of upper-middle-class white kids, which cannot be a good test.
While wealthy kids have the opportunity to go to SAT coaching schools such as Princeton Review or Kaplan, poor kids don't have the choice to higher their SAT score. Even if students have the ability to learn and perform well in college, many of them won't try hard because they know it is nearly impossible for people that didn't study for SAT to get good scores. As Murray says, “if