DCLaw11 wrote:Just like in public schools, high school, and undergraduate studies, standardized testing is overly emphasized. By emphasizing the LSAT, GRE, SAT, and any other test, we teach to the test, not to intelligence. Intelligence and work ethic could be best measured by taking a few minutes to look at each student's accomplishments. Instead, many choose standardized testing because looking at a score generated by one test is much easier than configuring a way to quantify each student's achievements displayed on their resume or transcript.
You are mistaken, at the very least about the GRE, which plays a really small role in most graduate admissions. It's a weed-out mechanism, if anything.
Also, your idea to "quantify each student's achievements" sounds really nice, but it lacks specifics. Probably because it would be impossible to quantify qualitative factors like achievements.
Yes, I know the GRE has a small role in the admissions process. I have taken one and I am currently in a grad program that I will be finishing this spring. However, I still believe these tests are almost useless. Yes, quantifying each student's achievements is not specific, but if anyone gave it a little thought I'm sure we could all come up with a basic ranking system.
As a former inner-city tutor/teacher, I have seen "teaching to the test" firsthand. This starts from our elementary days, and even through today, as we study for the LSAT. It is an inherently privileged system.
You have to believe these tests are teachable. If we all sat around and studied for a year and learned every nuance of the test, then most would do well. However, many do not have these resources. I still believe it is best to judge by achievements and experiences (internships, volunteering, work), as I've said before.