Thursday, October 16, 1997
Letters
The SAT is good for something
The Oct. 13 editorial is nearly all junk. Your basic point, as I
see it, is that there are many qualified students applying to UC
and using a particular measure to gauge future success is somehow
unfair. Note that the SAT is simply an additional measure and not
the only one. There are just too many people who want to attend UC
and more specifically UCLA, so how in the world are they going to
determine who is awarded one of the few slots available? If the
committee places more emphasis on another measure, then you can
still make the exact argument (and actually write the same article
word for word) while replacing "SAT" with some other measuring
system.
Furthermore, the SAT does indeed measure important abilities,
not just one’s ability to "take a standardized test under time
pressure," but actually useful information such as … vocabulary!
For example, the better vocabulary one has, generally the better
they will be able to communicate and understand. This directly
applies to their probable success in the UC. I easily infer from
the article that vocabulary is some unimportant thing people have
to memorize in order to get a higher test score. God forbid I
should have to learn any of these words for intelligent use in the
future. Only for taking the test though, right? Since there are so
many people applying to UC and UCLA, what else do you plan on using
to measure probable future success? With similar credentials (4.1
GPA with extracurricular activities, good class selection, etc.),
some people are going to be upset, or are you proposing admission
of all 30,000 people who apply each year? With numbers this large
and very limited resources to differentiate between candidates,
would you rather have students with 4.1 GPAs and SAT scores of
1,000, or would you rather have a 4.1 and score of 1,300?
Todd H. Walters
UCLA Alumnus
Class of ’90