Mark Ratner: Something doesn't add up here...sounds fishy to me.

Nah, they were just all Asian. It's Irvine.

randomjsa: Oh I'm totally sure this came from just pure hard work and perseverance and had nothing to do with being taught the test.

I'm not saying they didn't work hard mind you but I knew a guy that did the "unheard of" thing of acing some sort of FAA qualification test.

By memorizing two-three thousand questions.

Yup. All standardized tests show is how well you can take a standardized test. Prep courses are all about taking previous tests, memorizing answers, and finding patterns in the test.

Balchinian: It is truly amazing how much you can tell about a person from what and how they write. But that was deemed to arbitrary, too inefficient, too slow, and too expensive, so now there is the standardized test...which tells you dick about how a kid is going to do in college.

JBangworthy: No, it's not an indication of that at all. It's only an indication that they're good at standardized tests.

Bullshiat. Essays are WAY more arbitrary and an invitation to favoritism, if not outright bigotry. Second, American education isn't nationalized so there's no objective way to compare GPAs in even adjacent districts, let alone states far apart. We need standardized tests because there are no other standards. Without them there's no objective way to compare students. Now, I will say it's not ideal. Despite the political risks I do believe we should nationalize a lot of our education system and one reason is because of over-reliance on the SAT and ACT. The tests are far from infallible and the current system puts way too many eggs in one basket. So we can agree this is a symptom of a much bigger problem, but fact is they're the best we've got right now. We can't replace them with inherently biased methods.

As for the test itself, the issue is more with how it's used. The "standardized test" itself is rather benign. Anything can be a standardized test; it's the standard that's important. For example, you can use a sprint to gauge physical fitness. It's a pretty crude way to compare everyone from marathon runners to hockey goalies. Does it translate to how well they do in any given sport except sprints? Of course not. Doesn't mean a pitcher can throw, or a cornerback can defend, or a point guard can shoot. So by anti-SAT logic the whole thing should be abolished, which reveals a horrible ignorance in the purpose of a standardized test, and that's this: ANYONE who is in decent shape (assuming no disability but the same applies to the ACT as well) will have a decent sprint time. Every fatass is going to have a crappy sprint time. You can whine and WHAARGARBL about how flawed the test is all you want, and sure it's asinine to rely exclusively on it to, say, identify elite talent. A 36 ACT score doesn't mean someone's a genius; and if you're looking for the next great NFL QB you're not gonna find him with a damned sprint. However, you CAN very reliably separate the fatasses from the athletes with just this one, simple, crude test as long as it's standardized. That's the point.

A standardized test establishes a floor for performance. An obsessive helicopter parent can certainly influence a kid's score but the kid still has to take the damned thing alone. You don't have to be a genius to ace a standardized test, but you can't be retarded. It's just an excuse. Someone in the bottom half is below average; I don't care how bad they are at taking tests. Elite schools may have a hard standardized test score floor but if you think that's unfair, understand they're looking at kids who could ace those damn things drunk. Again, it's like an elite sports team rejecting you because you have a crappy sprint time. It may say nothing about your other skills but it doesn't matter. Every elite athlete will be in such condition that the test is a joke to them; there's simply no such thing as a person in fantastic physical shape who can't run. So while a smart person may underperform on a test, it's a statistical certainty they're not going to do badly.

If they were Asian kids, no action will be taken.
If black or white kids, there will be an investigation.

"A 36 is a perfect score, which all of these students achieved and really a strong indication of how college and career ready these students are," said ACT Consultant Romi Kim.


No, it's not an indication of that at all. It's only an indication that they're good at standardized tests. They could all be complete dirt balls who rely on their helicopter mother to do everything for them. They could get out on their own and die from a skin infection brought on by living in their own filth. The ACT doesn't account for that. They could get a job and find that the complex mass of human interaction needed to do most things in society bears no resemblance to performing well on a test.

I'm not hating on standardized tests; I actually teach a prep class for several. I just know they're not indicative of much at all.

yep, these kids are definitely college and career ready.

/same mantra the school district I work for vomits over and over
//not every kid needs to go to college
///still can't figure out why this isn't obvious