Thursday, January 22, 2004
Moreover, if "we want students who are diverse and talented, with interests and achievements in and out of the classroom," they've already said they aren't going to emphasize academic achievement. At least she saved students some money.
That said, this paragraph just annoyed me.
We Americans desperately want to be reassured that we are the best when it comes to equalizing opportunity and rewarding merit, and the SAT affords us the chance to indulge our appetite for seemingly objective measurement. But at the underside of our meritocracy is a car-crash culture, filled with such wrecks along the self-esteem highway as television programs like "Survivor," "The Bachelor," "American Idol" and "Extreme Makeover."Swygert calls this for what it is:
And that's where you'll find the real message of the SAT: If you are the last one standing, having beaten your competitors by any means necessary, you are the winner. Everyone else is a loser.
First she natters on about how the SAT was developed in the 1920's - I suppose we're supposed to assume that it's still a product of those old, bad, racist days, despite the fact that eugenic science has been discredited for fifty years - then she claims that the SAT is the same thing as reality TV, which is an ugly by-product of the 2000's. What's more, if I read this right, she's against all competition whatsover, because competition produces winners and losers.And, Swygert continues, using a GPA or class standing instead doesn't change the competitive nature of admissions at Pitzer, just the arena of competition.
UPDATE: Read Kimberly first, then read Cathy Seipp's send-up of President Trombley. I'll simply say, don't wait for the trustees to do anything.