Re: Justification for the SAT

[kber <kber@EARTHLINK.NET>]

Methinks you need to read a bit more carefully.  Sadker says in the piece from
which you quote that the way grades are awarded to girls encourages them to be
more conformist, that the process is one that fails girls, not that grades are
biased against them.  In this he is consistent with the rest of his work, such
as that shown in the book he co-wrote with his wife, Failing at Fairness.  It is
also worth noting that he is not saying that girls don't deserve higher grades,
you do, after all include the portion about the girls doing better on spelling
bees than boys.

Methinks you may be setting up a straw man.

Further,  a great deal of the double speak in DC comes from those in think tanks
on the right, where they have predetermined agendae, to which they try to fit
their "research" to "prove" their predetermined conclusions.  The mission
statements of such organizations make their intentions quite clear.

Similar statements and double-talk can be found in other organizations not
necessarily based in Washington DC, but whose membership and boards of directors
strikingly overlap with those that are.  It is interesting how few of those
writing on their behalf are trained in education, as if any such exposure might
otherwise pollute their pure thoughts.

So let's recap the rationale.  Boys don't do as well without these tests,
therefore these tests should be required, even though their main claim, as a
predictor of first year grades is (a) less effective the GPA in high school, and
(b) girls, who score lower on the tests do better in college and university,
even in the first year.

HMMM   maybe we should change the topic after all.  Now that's an old Washington
trick - if you can win on the facts, then change the argument, or better still,
attack the bringer of bad news.

Have a nice weekend.    You do your polemics from your point of view, and I'll
do 'em from mine.


Ken Bernstein