August 12th, 2008
|

August 12th, 2008
Produced by THIRTEEN ©2009 WNET.ORG Properties LLC. All rights reserved.
Sponsored by Mutual of America
Funding for Wide Angle is provided by PBS, Ford Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Foundation, Judy and Josh Weston, the Estates of Helen and Sam Roseman, Bernard and Irene Schwartz, The Shelley & Donald Rubin Foundation, and the Dr. Robert C. and Tina Sohn Foundation. Corporate support is provided by Mutual of America Life Insurance Company. Special funding for Time for School 3 is provided by Ida C. Schwartz, in memory of Bernard S. Schwartz; Carnegie Corporation of New York; and Paul P. Tanico. Additional funding for educational materials is provided by The Overbrook Foundation.
I voted No…but only as an ideal hope for the future…as of right now…I guess I would vote YES because there are no other ways to determine students on such a mass scale than standardized test.
Of course there are other ways to decide whether a student is college worthy. Grades, what teachers say about them, specific tests for certain subject areas.
For example, if a student is bad at test taking, but good at learning, they will have bad tests, mediocre grades, and the teachers will love them.
Standardized tests are a test of how well students studied for that test, not what they know, or how inteligent they are.
At present time’s Gaokao has too many problems. I just paid 10,000 Chines yuan for my relatives kid to get in to college. It happens too often.
What, then are the SAT’s and every other entrance exam for grad school in the US? How about the Regents in NYC? If you think that extracurriculars or teacher’s recs make that much of a difference in the US, think again.