The SATS is a standardized test that colleges in the United States. It is a requirement for most colleges in the United States. The test is intended to test a student's readiness for college. However, who is to say that one complex test can access how ready a student is for college. The importance placed on SATS is overrated, one test should not determine how much a student actually knows. There are many other components that can assess a students preparation for college.
Your SAT's scores should be accounted for when applying to college. SAT's test subject knowledge. SAT are standardized tests meaning everyone takes the same test. GPA's however differ by school. College is filled with tests and entrance exams for graduate school. You have to be able to take a test in some form as you will be introduced to it multiple time during and after college. Many personal and other related issues could cause a hindrance on your GPA. GPA's are flawed.
The SATS is not that standardized if some students get a longer testing time. Then it is no longer fair for each student. Who is to say that the SATS isn't flawed after it is only one test on different subjects. Students can prepare for college exam with the regents after all, each student must pass them to graduate. Isn't that good enough, What does the SATS show that regents don't? As for GPA it is true that it can account for the student's progress in school. It allows colleges to see what the student's strengths and weakness are and it also reflects four years of work not 3 hours of one test. You have to think about the hours spent on state test and regents that counts way more than SATS.
In your opening statement you said the SAT's are standardized tests. Students who get longer testing time is due to a learning disability and they have a series of requirements for that. The SAT's according to the Princeton review is a reasoning test that asses not only material that they should have learned but also their ability to derive logical answers. Not every school is required to take regents. My school was one of them. So for schools like that what would colleges use along with grades for admissions? Regents are statewide for new York state. Other states have their own state wide testing system. The SAT's is a national test administered on the same dates for every state in the U.S. The SAT's test writing math and critical reasoning skills.
Whether or not schools administrate the regents has very little to so with the fact that SATS Do not measure a student true potential. If a school does not give regents then they must complete some form of testing to make sure students meet their requirements. That could mean exhibitions, portfolio and various other measurements that can reflect what student knowledge. Just because the SATS is a national test doesn't mean it's a fair reflect after all some schools don't have enough resources to cover all the information in test. Some schools who are more privilege are able to score higher scores. According to a study conducted in the 90s showed that students in a high social class tend to get higher scores. Which could be because they have more resources to learn the material. Should it be fair for a test to reflect a student's knowledge if they don't have the resources to learn the material?
You seem to be arguing that SAT's isn't a good measure for how much a student knows and shouldn't be used when determining entrance to college but what do you suggest instead? The SAT's being a national test mean that everyone takes the same test for admission to college leaving less room for flaws. All schools and students have access to free materials to help study for the SAT via the Internet. Students can also use other materials such as study groups, or organizations who's sole purpose is to help improve SAT scores. Three categories critical reasoning, writing and math are used in the SAT. All three categories play a role in college and are used to determine college readiness. The SAT's aren't about how smart you are. You didn't have pass your history class to be able to pass this test. It measures logic along with basic math and writing skills that are necessary for college.
What I am saying is that SATS aren't good assessment of what a student might know. I'm suggesting coming up with a different form of testing how much a student know. The SATS is crunched into three hours. I suggest making a test of some sort that a student could take each year and then have the scores averaged out so this way colleges could get an exact measurement of the student. You also must take into account that not all students are good test takers so there should be a method that could be fair to all students. I understand that Math, English and Reading are essential however, it is also important that a student has a fair shot when showing colleges how ready they are. It comes down to making a system more reliable then the SATS or ACT. Maybe the SATS should be eliminated or altered so that it can fit all students.
The SAT's aren't made to measure what a student might know. That's what regents are for. They serve as a prediction to a students ability to perform college level work. The national association of college admission counselors conduct a survey every year and high school grades are always the number one criteria used by colleges. Imagine how many applications colleges get per year and how much room they have in their school. The SAT's are used along with grades to help reduce the list for colleges. You have the chance to prove yourself through your grades if you happen to be a bad test taker along with several other options to help you gain a higher SAT score. There are many schools where the SAT along with the ACT are optional and other requirements are made so students have options. When answering the question should SAT's account for a students readiness for college I believe they should. SAT's goes beyond high school grades and proves a students ability to interpret logic. SAT's are standardized and everyone takes the same test making less room for flaws. There are many study tools that a student can get access to on their on and there is lots of people and organizations willing to help. For those who are good test takers there are colleges that make SAT's optional.
Reasons for voting decision: I think that SAT's shouldn't count for readiness for college. Some students like me would freak out about doing badly and that resulting in not getting into our top choice college
Reasons for voting decision: The only argument in this debate was about fairness. In excellent debates, there are more than one major part where both sides clash upon and develop their arguments stronger as rounds proceed. But this debate remained quite monotonouse and on thin layer only. Con's only argument which is the fact that it is unfair was in fact defeated by Pro saying if there is another alternative. Next time try not to debate about something that is already happening and has happended for so long without huge controversy. I think this debate was in fact difficult for Con to begin with.
Reasons for voting decision: My interpretation of the resolution is that SATs should be taken into account in assessing a student's readiness for college, in other words SATs should be used along with other data. The compelling Pro argument is that a national test allows better comparison of students from different states. Con's argument of "unfairess" relies on some students aving more coaching or other preparation. But the resolution is about readiness for college, not about what remediation ought to be offered to disadvantaged students. Timed tests are not everything, but they are one reasonable measure.
Reasons for voting decision: I found neither side to have any compelling arguments. Neither side provided sources for any facts to back up the few arguments they had. And both sides demonstrated poor writing skills. There were misspellings, grammatical errors, punctuation errors and arguments were not laid out in a a clear enough way. I suggest looking at other debates and how they are done. You should do a rematch. Arguments should be compelling enough that the debates aren't brought down to who had a better presentation.
Con had slightly less writing errors.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.