http://www.collegiatechoice.com/mycarts.htm
I recently read an article in the Collegian about falling SAT scores amongst the classes at Richmond. While the class of 2006 to 2007 had a range of SAT scores between 1240 and 1390, the class of 2013 had a range of 1170-1360. The author argues that Richmond’s choice to accept students with lower SAT scores harms the academic reputation of the school as well as making it less competitive with other schools that have raised their standards of SAT scores. Although I agree with his zeal to admit the brightest students into the University, he fails to look at the big difference in the SAT scoring: the writing section.
In 2005, the SAT added a writing section in which the student is asked a series of grammar and punctuation questions and must write a persuasive essay on a certain subject. Therefore, the class of 2006 and of 2007, who would have graduated from high school in 2002 and 2003, were not required to take that section. While the author does not focus on the writing section in the article, it is my belief that this is the most important factor as to why the range of SAT scores has dropped amongst Richmond students. He does not suggest that we aren’t as smart as those who graduated in 2006 and 2007, but he does imply that our performance on the SAT should indicate our preparedness for college. So, I ask, if he is looking at preparedness for college, why doesn’t he factor in the writing section on the SAT?
In The Transition to College Writing, the first chapter discusses the orientation of two new college students, one whose transition goes smoothly, while the other struggles. The latter student, Marie, attended an exclusive private high school where she was said to be prepared for college. However, her view on receiving good grades was “Learning is remembering what teachers and textbooks say.” Isn’t it possible that some of those students who graduated before 2007 had a view of learning that was comparable to Marie’s? After all, the SAT without the writing section can be seen as mostly a test of memorization and the ability to “beat the system,” something that I failed miserably at doing.
I was one of those students who was at the lower range of the SATs. I just wasn’t good at the SATs. I took classes about strategies and did multiple practice tests, but on the sections that this author discusses, I did not exert a strong performance. On the writing section, however, I demonstrated my ability to write and analyze effectively. I argue that my performance on the writing section as well as my admissions essay helped admissions officers overlook my mediocre scores on the two other sections of the SATs. My writing better displayed my preparedness for college than my performance on a test. In response to the author of this article, I would agree that Richmond has made a change, but where he sees it as a bad change, I see it as an improvement. While the University may not appear to be as “competitive” or as difficult to be admitted into as it was before, it is admitting students who will thrive here. These students who have been taught to analyze and write effectively are more prepared for college than those who simply have memorized their way through school and have performed well on the SATs. If the University is admitting students who are more prepared for an education here, they will gain more from what they have been taught, allowing them to flourish in college and beyond. So, if I am surrounded by students who will challenge their thoughts and my own, I appreciate the University’s decision to admit the students who they feel are prepared for college. If Richmond wants to admit students that show their preparedness through writing rather than to gain a statistic, then call me crazy, but I see absolutely no problem with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment