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".

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"?

I think there is definitely a balance to be made between good test taking abilities and a strong work ethic. You wouldn't want to admit someone to college who is naturally gifted but doesn't try in school, but at the same time someone could be incredibly hard working, but just not have the natural abilities to match. I think it's definitely a combination of both that should be looked at, and one shouldn't outshine the other. However, I can guarantee that hard work in the end does make a person smarter, even if they start off not so smart.
ReplyDelete