Just when I thought the world couldn't get anymore unreasonable, it does. These days, it's hard to stray away from the topic of politics and discussion of the ever-changing laws and protests. I, for one, tend to avoid the back and forth banter of this subject so that uncomfortable and awkward arguments do not come up. However, while watching the news the other night, I was glued to the screen when a story relating to the SAT came up.
Ever since the SAT came around, it was known for being the one test that could tell a students' intellectual knowledge. Being comprised of multiple different subjects, it was able to come up with an overall score of what is inside the students' brain. Of course, due to the importance of this test for many colleges, there was always controversy about how well the test accurately portrayed the students' knowledge. Because come on, a four-hour test that you've been told your whole college decision relies on isn't the most ideal place for your brain to thrive. However, the most recent controversy about this standardized test is one that I do not stand by whatsoever.
Recently, there has been talk about additional points being added to students' SAT tests that don't have anything to do with their intellectual ability at all. Most people would think, "what's wrong with a little boost?" but what if that boost was only available to certain students and it was for something out of their control completely. The most recent idea that is on its' way to being put in place is the idea to add up to 50 points for students that grew up in poverty or have a difficult upbringing situation. That means that just because a student may live in a bad area that they get an advantage over a student that was lucky enough to grow up in a good environment with resources.
Now don't get me wrong, I feel for children that have grown up with struggles and non-ideal situations but this test is not a judge of that. This test is supposed to be measuring how much the students know, and with these added points it alters the result into something less accurate. For example, a student that has grown up in a care-free and easy environment but does not study for or care about this test could receive a lesser score as someone who grew up in a bad neighborhood that used the available resources and time to improve his knowledge. The same goes for a student in a good area that really studies and puts effort toward the test could receive a higher score than someone who doesn't really care about school and who happens to live in a poorer neighborhood.
To me, this test is all about what you have obtained and put the effort towards learning. It doesn't matter where you're from or what you had growing up, it matters that you took the time out of your life to understand and retain. Students have the opportunity to use resources in schools and public libraries to study for tests like these. They also can participate and have outlets throughout the school to guide and help them with concerns. Along with this, it is also adding another source of inequality among students. By not keeping this test an equal ground, there is room for debate and discussion of the unfairness of the whole idea.
Children do not choose the environment they grow up in, but they do choose the amount of energy and effort they put in to make their lives better. And that is something to think about.