Re: Standard Testing for Colleges and Universities
From an email I sent to my family, sorry, don't want to write it out again:
But honestly, if you're in college, or thinking of going to college, or know someone who's in college, check out this article. it's ridiculous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/education/09testing.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I am so so so so upset. I feel like i should... i don't know, write a letter to the editor, or to some senator, or... anything. I can't even properly articulate all the things that are wrong about this- especially, but in no way exclusively, for a school like mine. This, it seems, comes down to poor budgeting for a country that still feels it's living in light of the revolutionary war and is spending too much of its money on things like "defense of terror" (the NYT current headline article). Maybe they should realize that the problem isn't with colleges, it's with elementary schools not having enough money to teach children how to read, and Jr. high and high school not having enough money to develop reading and critical analysis skills.
The article points out that expensive colleges feel the need to provide information showing that the money families are spending is really worth it, and therefore these tests would be beneficial to them. Coming from one of the most expensive colleges in the country, I would say that standard testing would not benefit my school in the least. The issue at hand is about the recent published literacy results saying that recent college graduates don't have good enough reading skills, and can't synthesize information, or draw complex inferences from what they've read. I would say, however, that out of the schools I'm familiar with (and from what I've heard, and according to reputation) my school is better at this than most. SLC classes are structured in such a way that they teach students how to read in this manner. My housemate claimed that she believed someone would be hard pressed to find someone on this campus who couldn't read critically. Therefore our campus is a good example of why these standard tests are a bad idea. A school that doesn't have the problem that this issue is addressing, an expensive school, a private school, but a school that is known for having students who do poorly on not only standard tests, but tests in general. My fear is that by comiting to this method of testing what is being learned, my school will have to cater to this lifestyle of test giving. Part of the curriculum may have to be learning how to take tests, rather than our current goal of learning how to learn, how to read, how to synthesize and make inferences from texts. And Sarah Lawrence is in no way the only school that would run up against these issues.
Charles Miller is a business executive, why is he heading this commission? Why does the president have any say in education? Maybe I misunderstand the job of the president, but doesn't it have to do with being the commander in chief of the "armed forces"? Or even just as chief executive, is this really within his power to mess up? Wasn't that part of the issue at hand with the recent life-support issues and the president putting his nose in other people's business?
Anyway, there's a lot more to be said, but I'm feeling a little too exhausted with this issue to write what i really want, i think. but, just as a side note, i would Love to see the literacy test results for someone who went to a school that is considered a good or Ivy league school that is known for students who do well in tests and who have achieved this higher level of education- how about the president? I have a feeling his results would force this committee to at least reevaluate their policies on not having to test Ivy leagues.
But honestly, if you're in college, or thinking of going to college, or know someone who's in college, check out this article. it's ridiculous.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/education/09testing.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I am so so so so upset. I feel like i should... i don't know, write a letter to the editor, or to some senator, or... anything. I can't even properly articulate all the things that are wrong about this- especially, but in no way exclusively, for a school like mine. This, it seems, comes down to poor budgeting for a country that still feels it's living in light of the revolutionary war and is spending too much of its money on things like "defense of terror" (the NYT current headline article). Maybe they should realize that the problem isn't with colleges, it's with elementary schools not having enough money to teach children how to read, and Jr. high and high school not having enough money to develop reading and critical analysis skills.
The article points out that expensive colleges feel the need to provide information showing that the money families are spending is really worth it, and therefore these tests would be beneficial to them. Coming from one of the most expensive colleges in the country, I would say that standard testing would not benefit my school in the least. The issue at hand is about the recent published literacy results saying that recent college graduates don't have good enough reading skills, and can't synthesize information, or draw complex inferences from what they've read. I would say, however, that out of the schools I'm familiar with (and from what I've heard, and according to reputation) my school is better at this than most. SLC classes are structured in such a way that they teach students how to read in this manner. My housemate claimed that she believed someone would be hard pressed to find someone on this campus who couldn't read critically. Therefore our campus is a good example of why these standard tests are a bad idea. A school that doesn't have the problem that this issue is addressing, an expensive school, a private school, but a school that is known for having students who do poorly on not only standard tests, but tests in general. My fear is that by comiting to this method of testing what is being learned, my school will have to cater to this lifestyle of test giving. Part of the curriculum may have to be learning how to take tests, rather than our current goal of learning how to learn, how to read, how to synthesize and make inferences from texts. And Sarah Lawrence is in no way the only school that would run up against these issues.
Charles Miller is a business executive, why is he heading this commission? Why does the president have any say in education? Maybe I misunderstand the job of the president, but doesn't it have to do with being the commander in chief of the "armed forces"? Or even just as chief executive, is this really within his power to mess up? Wasn't that part of the issue at hand with the recent life-support issues and the president putting his nose in other people's business?
Anyway, there's a lot more to be said, but I'm feeling a little too exhausted with this issue to write what i really want, i think. but, just as a side note, i would Love to see the literacy test results for someone who went to a school that is considered a good or Ivy league school that is known for students who do well in tests and who have achieved this higher level of education- how about the president? I have a feeling his results would force this committee to at least reevaluate their policies on not having to test Ivy leagues.