Re: Justification for the SAT

[kber <kber@EARTHLINK.NET>]

Hey Jerry:

how come your response below is attached to my post?  I don't talk about
you at all.   Did you mean to respond to McGinnis?

Ken Bernstein

gerald bracey wrote:

>   I have never addressed the "issue" because I can't figure out what
> the hell you're talking about.  What "issue" is there about
> grades? Everyone knows that grades are flawed and most people know
> that the tests are flawed. And what on earth will you now define as
> "educational achievement," having ruled out tests and grades?
>
>      ----- Original Message -----
>      From: kber
>      To: ARN-L@LISTS.CUA.EDU
>      Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 5:26 PM
>      Subject: Re: Justification for the SAT
>       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
>