Critique of the Sat

The article was actually, quite enlightening, on a number of levels. I found that the descriptive dissemination of the information was interesting. I found it quite intriguing, that the SAT essay that is submitted, doesn’t have to be 100% accurate, in fact that is an underlying, weakness of the SAT. Of course, for some furnishing tales, is actually very simple. It reveals that the essay was simply a test if ingenuity, as well as how well you can package random spiel. It makes sense when you consider, how long it could take for a person (professor, or not) to actually read a whole paper, there definitely isn’t time to fact-check you. However, when I meditate on this issue, I begin to heavily question, whether this is the best way to evaluate one’s capacity, in writing. Those who claim that, using larger vocabulary rather than, the vernacular is a cheap, risky method of passing, are throwing up smoke and mirrors. Although what you need to pass the current SAT, isn’t the correct general writing style, children should have the option of learning the proper way. Then again, with the backlash teachers would have to face there’s nearly no point; because no good deed goes unpunished. Teachers, are placed in quagmires, due to vary objectives, at different grade levels, opposed to a universal format. The conflict of interest at different times places a dilemma. On the surface, it seems that reform of the SAT essay will help me, and other future classes, but there are underlying motives that move toward, saving money. Which proves that the Wu-Tang clan motto of C.R.E.A.M. (Cash Rules Everything Around Me) is still prevalent in society.