SAT Pros And Cons

Ravneet,

I entirely enjoyed reading your work here. I especially found the sewction in which you discussed how much priveledge plays a role in standardized test score results. Interestingly enough, there is research to back the idea that there is, indeed, a positive correlation between family income, race, and SAT score results. What is more, the man who developed the SAT in the early 20th century, Carl Brigham, was a self-proclaimed eugenecist. Brigham developed the test in such a way as to solidify his claim that some races were inferior to others. Unfortunately, today, SAT test results still show that certain races consistantly perform better than others. Therefore, my question to you would be, "how much do you think the SAT has remained

close with its roots in Eugenics?" Furthermore, in an earlier forum, I discussed famed psychologist and Harvard professor, Howard Garder's Theory of Multiple Intelligence. In summation, the theory discussed how an individual should be judged based on a comprehensive profile showing strengths in different categories. Do you think this theory would be a better alternative than the SAT, or perhaps something where individuals are judged based on their performance toward his or her peers?
When reading your work here, I definitely believe you had an extremely impactful opening paragraph. However, I am a intreguied with the direction that you took this paper. I am wondering if there would have been a difference in effectiveness if you decided to, rather than write about standardized tests as a whole, write about one specific standardized test (ie. SAT, LSAT, GMAT etc.). In addition, there were a few instances in your work where I was unsure if you were writing your own responces apropos of the subject, or if you were writing about your sources opinions. Namely, I encountered this at the end of your fifth paragraph.

I think you really did an awesome job with this paper!

- Joe