Ace that Test?

Does acing a test mean you know or understand the subject matter? You might be able to fool a teacher into thinking so (I use"might" loosely), but as a student I will admit to acing tests I hardly understand; I crammed for the test, spat back all the information, got the A, and forgot it all.


The idea that testing is an effective form of assessment puzzles me. This is, in part, the reason I chose to write my junior theme on the SAT because I question if the test actually measures anything important- other than the student's ability to take the test with out necessarily understanding how to apply the material.

This theme is mirrored in Don Delillo's White Noise as the main character Jack Gladney, head of the "Hitler Studies" deapartment at "The College on the Hill", struggles to learn to speak German. Although Jack "did wonderfully well with vocabulary and rules of grammar" and  "could have passed a written test easily, made top grades" he "continued to have trouble pronouncing the words" (165). In this passage, DeLillo comments on how someone could make "top grades", but still not be able to apply the material. In Jack's case, he's able to memorize vocabulary and grammar, but knowing that information is all in vain if he still can't speak German. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure language is meant to be spoken.

I'm not trying to say that all tests are pointless, we obviously need a way to assess academic achievment, but is testing the best method?

Rewarded for Your Genes

As some of you may know, I've decided to write my junior theme on why standardized tests are used in the college admission process- specifically the SAT. The SAT faces a lot of criticism becasue many believe it to be biased towards certain racial and ethnic groups. It's no mystery that there have been consistant scoring gaps between races and ethnic groups, but that's not the only criticism it faces (Zwick). Many now wonder what the SAT actually measures or rather what it should measure.
The SAT originally stood for "Standardized Aptitude Test", but was later changed to "Standardized Assessment Test" until College Board finally dropped the name all together and is now just the "SAT".
This is where the problem lies. The College Board, owner of the SAT, claims that the test "is a relatively good predictor of how students will do in their first year of college" rather than an IQ test of sorts, but if the test was originally designed to measure "aptitude" or innate intelligence, how are we sure it still doesn't just reward good genes today?
Just from personal experience, I know plenty of people who did extraordinarily well on the ACT or SAT, but have a very low GPA considering. These are people I know are exeptionally bright students, but just don't follow through on school work. So does the SAT/ACT reward them for their genetic brilliance? 
I will admit to being a hardworker with average test scores and I'll also admit that standardized tests have always frustrated me for that reason. But innate capabilites are rewarded all the time so why no the SAT too? A prime example of this would be sports. Some people are natural athletes with incredible physical capabilities, and therefore benefit from their athletic genes. The same goes for high scoring test takers. They were born with great genes and benefit from the academic system greatly because of it.
So... is that wrong? Or is just "playing the system"?
Perhaps the real question we should be asking is whether or not college admission directors use test scores in their admission process. Should they be looking for hard workers? Or simply naturally brilliant minds?

Calling all Colleges

This year, I spent spring break on the road visiting colleges, and after visiting 7 schools I am thoroughly exhausted and even more confused. While all these schools look for slightly different things on a potential student's application, they all claimed that the transcript was the most important component. That seems fair, right? Colleges should be looking for students who work hard and take rigorous courses.

But just when I thought I was in the clear, they uttered the words I hate hearing: "...oh but we also require either the SAT or the ACT as well". 

This frustrates me on a couple of levels and intrigues me at the same time. I'm so interested in the idea of standardized testing that I've actually decided to write my junior theme on it. The reason I find this debate so interesting is because I don't know why so many colleges require some form of testing on their applications. Do they think it's a fair way of determining or gauging intelligence? I have consistently heard from college admission boards that they are more interested in the hard working, driven student, than the kid with the photographic memory. But if college admissions are truly interested in the hard working student then why include testing scores at all?

According to iSeek Education, most 4-year universities "rely on standardized tests to determine your readiness for college–level study"  

Why do test scores determine one's "readiness"? I've always been told that working hard in high school is what prepares a student for college. Do you think a student with a 36 ACT score means he's ready for college?