Well, my college experience was more about learning math and programming than irrelevant vocabulary.  In fact, I do not recall a single vocabulary test in college.  Do you?  I hated every class that required the memorization of obscure vocabulary.  I actually dropped a physiology class because it came down to "memorize the names of all your bones, muscles, tendons & ligaments."  I

The point is to pick people who will do well in college, but why does someone who wants to be a programmer need to know the vocabulary around golf, competitive sailing, or geology?

Thalia

I hated every class that required the memorization of obscure vocabulary.  I actually dropped a physiology class because it came down to "memorize the names of all your bones, muscles, tendons & ligaments."

So I guess the SAT predicted your aptitude perfectly.

tnt needs to track moderation. stats page!

She's lucky there's no memorization involved in getting a law degree and passing the bar exam.

The point is to pick people who will do well in college, but why does someone who wants to be a programmer need to know the vocabulary around golf, competitive sailing, or geology?

To be a well-educated person?  Isn't this why we make people do all that liberal arts stuff instead of just sending everyone to trade schools?

Reading speed is not particularly an indicator of the ability to learn.  It's just an indicator of reading speed.  I am not smarter than my friend who is dyslexic.  My friend who has ADD is actually much smarter than I am (which takes some doing, I must say, since I consider myself pretty darn smart).  They simply have issues that prevent them from reading quickly.

The ability to acquire vocabulary is not what is tested.  The actual useless words you know is tested.  Why exactly is it useful that I know all the names that rivers can be given?  Why is that a reflection of my intelligence, rather than a reflection of the amount of useless data stuffed into my skull?

Actual knowledge is not "the ability to regurgitate memorized vocabulary words," because that is not useful knowledge.  At least not where I live.

You're right, being rich is a huge advantage.  Not only because you get private tutors, but also because your school is almost guaranteed to be better.  Is that fair?  Nope, not particularly.  Is it a huge bias for the rich?  Why, yes, so it is.  So why do people argue that the SATs are not biased?  I don't get it.

Thalia

"My friend who has ADD is actually much smarter than I am"

I'm sure the blind and parapeligiacs have added difficulty taking the SAT as well, but I don't see how, and you haven't given a reason, this invalidates the test for the majority of the population.

"Why is that a reflection of my intelligence, rather than a reflection of the amount of useless data stuffed into my skull?"

Vocabulary correlates strongly and reliably with general IQ.  

So, Thalia utters conflicting statement?  Pot...meet kettle.

To wit...

wealthy people can get better grades because they can hire math and english tutors, etc.

and a few lines later...

Expensive test prep is a waste of time and money,

Or...is there a distinction between tutoring and test prep that I am missing?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

It's not a contradiction to think that working with a geometry tutor can raise a students grade in geometry but taking a test prep class won't raise that same students standardized test score.

I don't understand what it is you and girlfriend want. The SAT was introduced to make college admissions more meritorcratic.

What my girlfriend and I want is ground pounding, sweat inducing, exploding heart of a star sex.

I have no idea what Thalia wants.

I agree that the SAT was introduced to make college admissions more meritocratic.  But you know...the Iraq war was introduced to end terrorism in the world.  Funny how things work out, eh?

By the way, Gord...that's for evidence of a direct hit.  You always get personal when someone dings you.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

"get personal"? I didn't realize your relationship with Tahlia was such a sensitive subject.

Seriously, the SAT has made college admissions more meritocratic. You and your non-girlfriend may think things aren't meritorcratic enough, but the changes in the test you both are advocating, i.e. getting rid of g-releated portions like vocabulary, would result in the opposite of what you are complaining about.

I'm looking up stuff about indicators of ability to learn.  In the meantime, I'll take a stab at this.

Reading speed and the ability to acquire vocabulary are indicators of an ability to learn, aren't they?

I always thought (well, at least as long as I have been a teacher) that problem solving is a better way of gauging learning ability.  While reading speed and vocabulary might  help in reading the written problem, coming up with a solution is a better indicator.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I completely agree.  If they tested problem solving ability, especially problem solving where all data is provided, and what they're testing is how you absorb data, and based on it solve problems would be much more useful.  I found it fascinating that 1/3 of the California Bar Exam is a test that provides you all laws & facts, and asks you to do analysis.  By then, I guess, they figure you should know how to problem solve, not just memorize.

Thalia