comparative analysis

Professor Barlow

ENGL 1302-33002

20 February 2017

SAT: Systemic Advantage Test

College is a dream for many students in the United States and across the globe, and every year hundreds of thousands of students flock to their local high schools to take the SAT and ACT exams. While high school and college admissions are stressful enough without these tests, the added pressure of these exams can seem unnecessary and unfair, but are they? Are these tests worth the hours of studying and tears behind them? The articles “Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test” by Dr. Michele Hernandez of the Huffington Post and “In defense of the SAT test” by Charles Lane of the Washington Post attempt to answer these questions with opposing viewpoints. Hernandez claims that the standardized tests are not fair indicators of collegiate success and should not be used in determining college acceptance; Lane, on the other hand, argues that while the tests may have problems, the elimination of the tests would cause more problems than it would remove. Lane’s claim is more effective than Hernandez’s because he addresses the other side of the argument more, but both articles lack varying support for their opinions, which can render them unsound in Hernandez’s case and non-cogent in Lane’s.

A title is a preview into what an article or story will tell you. A successful title will grab the attention of the reader and should provide some preview into what the article is about. The title “Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test” is a very interesting title and far more eye-catching than the Washington Post’s article. The title suggests that there is something wrong with the system of admissions that affects many students across the country. According to the College Board, 1.7 million students took the SAT in 2015. An article title that will change the lives of that many students a year will definitely gain traction and attention. The title also makes it clear what the author’s claim and the entire article will be about. In contrast, “In defense of the SAT test” is a much subtler title. While searching articles on Google, I passed this article many times because the title does not catch my attention, even though it has one of the better arguments from those that I viewed. While a stronger title like “The SAT Savior” would have been preferred, I can understand why the author would choose to use a more understated title. The title does clearly express the article’s viewpoint and tell what the article will be about, but the title is the polar opposite of the rest of the articles I viewed. Almost all of the articles had extremely bold titles, so the author having a weaker title separates it from the rest of the crowd. How effective this technique actually was would depend on who is searching for the article.

A claim is what an author is arguing and what they wish the reader to take away from an article. It is important to analyze a claim because the claim will determine whether the arguments are suitable for the article. Hernandez never explicitly states what her claim is; she only alludes to it with examples. One can assume her claim is that the SAT is not a fair indicator in college admissions because she calls College Board “Hogwash” because of their claim that “These exams provide a path to opportunities, financial support and scholarships, in a way that’s fair to all students” (Hernandez). Not having a clear claim is unfair to the audience because they are not offered direction. In fact, the article just feels longwinded and pointless. Further, Hernandez fails to properly structure her article in a way that benefits the audience. On the other hand, Lane’s article has a very clear claim. Lane made the clearest statement about his argument in the middle of the article by expressing, “On a more fundamental level, the aspiration that the SAT embodies — to express a student’s academic aptitude in a single number — strikes me as a useful, indeed, a noble one.” His claim is that the SAT’s purpose is to give students an impartial, unbiased playing field in college admissions and scholarships. Throughout the article, he acknowledges other factors that should be indicated in college admissions and indicates that the SAT and ACT are not perfect. One point he made to drive home his claim was that while grades can be good indicators of work ethic, different schools will have different curriculums, programs, and resources. This is a valid statement between two public schools in the same city; imagine the difference between two schools across the country. Lane continued to reaffirm his claim from beginning to end, something that Hernandez does not do.

The opposition is the other side of an argument. It is the views and opinions that disagree with the claim that an author is making. In order to change an opinion, both sides of a subject should be presented, or else the argument will appear biased. In her article, Hernandez failed to address the opposition; therefore, her argument felt more like a rant than an argument. Many teenagers and parents already feel that the SAT and ACT are unfair and Hernandez ran away with that knowledge. She complained in the article like she was a teenager herself without explaining the benefits of the two tests at all. She made it seem as if the SAT had no purpose at all. The closest thing Hernandez does to address the other side of her argument is admitting the benefit of the SAT Subject Tests and AP tests, but she does not acknowledge that not all high schools offer AP classes or that not all universities require or even accept SAT Subject Tests. This harms her argument because it is not just for Hernandez to convince the audience that the SAT is bad without supporting her argument with statistics or examples that support this; moreover, since the SAT is a test that gives results in numbers, it would not be that difficult to find statistics or support to address the other side. Hernandez simply chose not to do it. Lane does the opposite in his article. He started his article by addressing the common ground and the other side. He first addresses the opposition when he proclaims, “Preparing for and sitting through the SAT is a miserable experience (and an expensive one, to boot), which many students just can’t master for reasons having nothing to do with intellectual capability or curiosity.” He mentions that the SAT is difficult for students do well regardless of how smart they may actually be. This is probably the most argued opinion in the discussion of standardized tests. Many students feel that the SAT does not cover information they were taught in school and that it is a test that must be learned; hence, students do not perform as well on the test as their grades may suggest they would. Lane combats this argument in saying, “Yet SAT scores, for all their limitations, contain some valid information,” and recognizing other parts of an application are “by contrast, far more variable and subjective.” He wants the audience to realize that the SAT is the best way for colleges to even the playing field, indicating that it is arguably the fairest part of college admission. This makes sense because the test is the one thing that will not change based on each student. The test itself is the most objective thing that college admission officers get to see because, unlike varying high schools or lives, the test is the same.

The common ground of an article states something that both sides can agree to. Similar to the opposing viewpoint, it is important to analyze the common ground to determine whether an author is biased. In “Save Our Teenagers,” Hernandez does not properly address the common ground. The closest universal statement delivered is: “Should colleges assume that brilliant students simply hammer out triple 800s? I work with top SAT scorers — many triple 800 students — and their stories are the same: taking 10-15 full-length three-hour practice tests for two years of intensive drilling” (Hernadez). This example attempts to create a common ground because it shows that the SAT is hard and it is difficult for students to achieve perfect scores, but that is expected. This example fails at creating a common ground because it simply iterates the purpose of tests in general. The SAT is supposed to be difficult for even top students. If all students that had 4.0 GPAs received perfect scores, this article probably would proclaim the test should be harder. Since the author does not say something truly important, the audience is not united. Not establishing a true common ground has a negative consequence on the article; for those people who disagreed with the article to begin with, they have nothing to make them trust the author of the article. Lane’s process of addressing the common ground was completely different. He spends the first four paragraphs creating a hypothetical admissions test that was completely unbiased, fair, and an amazing indicator of college success that he called TestPerfect (Lane). Lane then tells the reader that TestPerfect does not exist but asks “As long as access to higher education is a scarce resource, for which students must compete, shouldn’t the criteria of individual merit be as objective—as quantifiable—as possible?” Almost everyone will agree the answer should be a resounding “yes.” Millions of high school students across the country worry about the SAT and getting into their dream schools, and most people agree that more deserving students should be granted admission. This is not a reality. Lane’s recognition of this gets everyone reading on the same page. He shows that college admissions are unfair and can be biased, so he uses this to support his argument that the SAT makes college admissions fairer than they would be without the test. This was very important to his argument because without reminding people that college admissions themselves are unfair and, later, reminding the audience that the SAT was made to combat this, people would not have changed their minds about his argument.

Credibility and experts are essential to an author’s argument. Experts are people that have ample experience and knowledge on a subject; thus, they can be trusted on the subject. It is important to analyze experts so the audience can know if the evidence they are being presented has merit. Both articles do a good job of citing experts in different ways, but Hernandez does a much more effective job. In Hernandez’s article, she is the expert herself. To prove this, Hernandez declares, “I spent four years working as an Assistant Director of Admissions at Dartmouth College where I evaluated thousands of applicants from around the world,” indicating that she has been immersed in the realm of the SAT Test and college admission decisions for many years. This is significant and the one part of the argument where Hernandez has a true lead over Lane. Being influential in the lives of hundreds of students by helping them achieve their SAT score goals, counseling them during the college application process, and being the person that decides whether or not they were the best fit for the school of their dreams is an expert on the SAT Test. Hernandez has insight into the effects of the test. She’s seen firsthand the way students study for the test and has rejected similar students from their top school of choice from underperforming on the test. This adds significant support to her argument and truly is the one thing that makes her argument compelling. Lane does reference some experts in his article. For example, he references George Washington University, who recently changed their admissions policy making the SAT and ACT tests optional. Using universities such as George Washington University does show that Lane is not biased and uses credible information, but the information does not support his argument very much. In fact, the inclusion of these examples in his article could sway the audience in the opposite direction. People may think his point was that more schools should offer test optional admissions policies when that was not Lane’s point at all. He wanted the audience to believe that these types of universities have problems because of the test optional policies, but he does not fully show that was what he meant. While doing this gave the article credible sources, it may have taken away Lane’s credibility if readers do not read closely.

Evidence is arguably the most important part of an essay. It is the support that the author uses to justify his or her claim. Both authors do a great job finding support for their claims. In Hernandez’s article, she relied heavily on numbers and statistics, while Lane focused more on history. In Hernandez’s article, she claims, “Students from affluent areas spend $15,000 and up on SAT prep and top SAT tutors in New York command $500-$1000 an hour.” This statements shows that the more money you have, the better you can prepare for the SAT. She shows that the SAT is not fair because people do not play fair. A large part of her argument was centered around the SAT being biased towards richer families because they can pay to learn the test. This quote is great support for that; although, without citing specific SAT tutors or test prep agencies, the quote lacks complete credibility. Later she says, “The majority of studies (like Stanford’s Bridge Report) agree that the best predictor of college success is success in rigorous high school classes, NOT SAT scores.” Hernandez named one of the most prestigious institutions in the world during this statement: Stanford University. Doing this shows the audience that even a top university has done research with results that opposes the SAT, but Hernandez doesn’t show the actual results of the study or explain how it was conducted. This is a problem because it is not fair to cite studies without explaining them. Lane uses history in most of his argument. He explains how racism was used against Jewish people during college admissions. He explains how Ivy League Universities have not always been fair in how they admit students. He acknowledges how holistic review of applications has and will continue to create biases. He does not use any statistics directly to support his argument, other than a link to another article explaining the positive effects of the SAT. Despite this, the support he used does work well for the structure of his article and argument. His argument is that the SAT makes college admission fairer, and he proved this by showing examples of how this occurred. While more statistics would have strengthened his argument, the examples may work even better.

Ultimately both articles make vastly different arguments. Both articles and authors make great points throughout their articles, but Lane’s was significantly more effective. While Hernandez does have great evidence and experts, she harmed her credibility in her approach to the argument. By avoiding the other side of the article, not creating a common ground or delivering a concrete claim, and structuring her article in a form that mirrored a rant, she alienated her audience. Even readers that may agree with her argument could have been lost, including me. Lane; however, had a clearer and more concise argument. Not only does he have experts and evidence like Lane, he made sure to continuously acknowledge the opposition to his argument and show support that opposed. He also used a very inquisitive approach, and in doing so, he forced the reader to ask deep questions about what they believe. This was extremely effective and even made me believe that it is better to have the test then to lose it entirely.

Works Cited

Hernandez, Dr. Michele. "Save Our Teenagers: Ditch the SAT Reasoning Test." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 Mar. 2013. Web. 6 Mar. 2017.

Lane, Charles. "In Defense of the SAT Test." The Washington Post. WP Company, 29 July 2015. Web. 6 Mar. 2017.