Matt Pepin's Week 1 Assignment

ENGL 210
Matt Pepin
5/17/07
Week 1 Assignment

A Proposal to Abolish Grading

Goodman makes the assumption that if half a dozen of the prestigious universities abolished grading, other educational institutions would follow suit. Part of the irony is that the schools he names as prestigious require some of the most rigorous standards for high grades and SAT scores in order to be considered for acceptance. He further states that he "thinks" the majority of professors agree with his assessment and uses his collection of essays, Examining in Harvard College, as proof that these essays prove the consensus of professors agree. Goodman fails to give any concrete data, and as far as the reader is concerned, these essays could just as easily deal with qualities that are very difficult or impossible to test; qualities such as integrity, compassion, honesty, morality, valor, and etc.

Without testing, how does the school know that the student is ready for the next level of course they will need to take. If one doesn't show that they are able to pass General Chemistry I and II, how will they be able to grasp Organic or Physical Chemistry. Is it fair to the student, the reputation of the school, or the financers of the education not to have a barometer of how a student is doing in comparison to others?

Goodman purports that grading stifles growth and mastery of a trade that would be more honorably served and nurtured by proving to their guild of peers what their capabilities were. He fails to mention the journey of learning from others that had to be met before they could argue their case or prove themselves for their final acceptance. Did everyone who endeavored to become accepted in their field succeed, and of those who did, were they not also criticized as well as praised by their teachers along the way. Wasn't there also competition, or as Goodman puts it, "climbing on his friend's neck", as part of the process of success and failure?

The author defends laziness, risk of failing, being downgraded, and conceit that one is already perfect to justify not being able to make the grade, which in this case is high marks on examinations. His defense that a student might be book-tired, the work doesn't suit them at this time, this school or this subject doesn't interest them and thus a waste of time and possibly a waste of life is the result, has no merit. If the student isn't in college to apply themselves, grades are a good way of reflecting this and maybe the student doesn't belong in higher education anyway. The world is becoming smaller and more competitive every day. People are graded not only in school, but evaluated and graded on their performance in their jobs. Excuses doesn't get one far in a career, performance that can be measured does.

I do not grant the author's assumptions. He fails to mention the responsibility gained from competition in grading and omits the effort needed to succeed. I do not know of any student that enjoys testing and the apprehension of what grade they will receive. Many of the classes we take we feel are not necessary to our majors but most of us feel that some standard or benchmark is necessary to make a degree meaningful.

Test for Aptitude, Not for Speed

Gardner assumes that SAT exams should not have a time limit. Through the examples that he gives, an explicit case can be made for allowing individuals with disabilities more time. If SAT's are to remain timed, there are valid reasons where time extensions or other allowances would be suitable. But this also opens the floodgates to an array of disorders real or imagined that could become so numerous as to make having a timed SAT be meaningless for a large proportion of test-takers.

I believe he opens himself to criticism by stating that eliminating the timed component would emphasize that background knowledge, seriousness of purpose and effort, instead of speed are essentials of good scholarship. The ability to answer questions in a timely manner on an SAT indicates that the student is more proficient and familiar with the subject matter, which is the purpose of the SAT.

In the last paragraph Gardner advocates allowing students to bring along dictionaries and have access to the WEB as this would more accurately duplicate actual working conditions. Without a time limit, and the use of the WEB and a dictionary, I believe the concept of the SAT is nullified. I think he would have a stronger case by advocating everyone should have an equal chance for an education and acceptance at the school of their choice.

Letters of Response to Howard Gardner

-Thomas Johnson Jr.
Mr. Johnson speculates that having exacting time constraints for SAT's is rational because it tests the student's ability to perform well under pressure. Though he offers no data for proof I agree with his assumption. College is a path that puts a student under deadlines and pressure. Real life jobs mirror these conditions and I believe Mr. Johnson's subjective assumption has merit.

-Garver Moore
Mr. Moore's last line is the best i have read in the entire chapter. The SAT test is just that- a test, not something to make someone feel good. Standardization coupled with a time frame is a better indicator of a person's aptitude than a person who is allowed unlimited time, a dictionary, laptop and a text book. He makes a valid claim in supporting a test in which conditions are held constant so that only a student's brain is responsible for his or her score. I would have never had to study for my driver's test if I'd been allowed the manual and a laptop. The evidence is implicit, and the whole concept is just common sense.

-Arnie Lichten
Arnie is quick and to the point. Her assumption is welcome to the real world where pressures and deadlines are reality. Her evidence is evident, we have all had deadlines that we'd rather had been able to put off but reality paid us a visit.

-Janet Rudolph
I believe Janet makes exceptions for professions that have the liberty of being done when they are done. Writers and artists are great professions if one can make a living at it. If they can't work quickly or balance a check book, not much harm is caused. Pilots, brain surgeons, corporate managers, and computer programmers to name a few, work under different pressures and deadlines. Her assumption is faulty in that it belittles those who work under pressures and deadlines and she included a tiny portion of society. For me, her argument was not persuasive and was annoying. I agree with her assumption that we humans do not fit into standardized boxes but parameters and standards are necessary for life, school, and an occupation.

In Defense of Testing- Diane Ravitch

Diane's assumptions on testing are so explicit as to invite the implicit about the importance of testing. She points out that though no one likes being tested, tests and standards are a necessary fact of life for our own protection and for constructive use. Concerning education, she makes a wonderful statement about testing. "...tests should be used to improve education, not ration it. Every child should have access to a high-quality education."

I believe most critics would agree with her assumptions. Her subject matter is engaging and provide solid ideas on what tests should entail and how they should be used. She points out that the testers should be tested to make sure they are qualified and know their subject matter well so they are capable of teaching young children.

Contrary to Paul Goodman's article, Diane was sensibly able to point out the pitfalls and benefits of testing. Moreover, she pointed out that testing and standards are important in many aspects of life. I believe it was a well written, well supported and practical writing.