Received: from weber.ucsd.edu (weber.ucsd.edu [132.239.147.2]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with ESMTP id NAA01821 for ; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 13:51:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: (from lmiller@localhost) by weber.ucsd.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) id MAA22171 for socgrad@csf.colorado.edu; Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:51:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Laura Miller Message-Id: <199706171951.MAA22171@weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Define GRE To: socgrad@csf.colorado.edu Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 12:51:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarded message: > > From: Jean Czerlinski > > Message-Id: <199706150556.AAA06204@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu> > > Subject: please forward > > To: owner-socgrad@csf.colorado.edu > > Date: Sun, 15 Jun 97 0:56:31 CDT > > > > > > Two comments on the GREs-- one about their good side, and one about their > > weird side. > > > > 1) A good side: I'm one of the people who can thank the GREs > > for giving me a chance at grad school, since I went to an undergraduate > > college WITHOUT grades. That means the grad schools have no numerical, > > "objective" measure of my abilities. Numerical is important because, > > realistically speaking in a less-than-ideal world, grad schools need > > *some* way of making their first cuts; there's no way they can read > > through and study all 300 applications they get. "Objective" means > > they have some measure that gets applied to everyone, because if my > > undergrad profs say I'm good, how do they know the profs are good > > judges, or that I didn't just sleep with them to get them to say > > good things? So the GREs can help people like me, who come from > > less-than-famous institutions or have strange blots on their > > records. They can get the admissions committee to at least look at > > our applications and read all the essays and recommendations. > > (By the way, Dan Ryan went to the same undergraduate college, so > > I guess he has something to thank the GREs for, too....) > > > > 2) A wierd side: the GREs are privately administered. Let me try to > > impress us with this fact, which we Americans take for granted. > > I think most people outside of the U.S. would recoil with horror > > at the thought. Most life-chance-determining tests are designed, > > distributed, scored, and administered by the GOVERNMENT. > > It's the logical administrator for such important tests, isn't it? > > It is also more likely to make a FAIR test than one that serves > > the needs of the customers (i.e. the universities wanting a > > measure of students' aptitude and the rich kids who can afford > > lots of prep to take the tests). Having the government run the > > test risks that over time the test will become outdated and less > > relevant to what students need to be able to do (while in theory > > market pressures should keep privately-run tests up-to-date). > > But it also makes the test more likely to be fair, namely > > FREE to take it, with research put into making questions > > culturally neutral, and so on. > > > > I don't have any specific criticisms of ETS, and my arguments > > above are a bit jumbled. I mainly mean to say that something > > really weird is going on when such important, widely-used > > tests are privately run. It's a bit like trying to have a > > privately run post office or privately run highway system: > > there are indeed profitable aspects of each, but I worry > > that the unprofitable (albeit important) aspects would fall > > by the wayside. Clark County, Wyoming, would stop getting > > mail. And inner-city kids don't have SAT scores. > > > > Sorry, this is now sounding inflamatory. I don't mean that > > government-run SATs and GREs would magically solve all those > > problems of educational inequality. But I do believe that > > there'd be a better chance of fairer testing if it was > > government run. And a good 90% of the rest of the world > > seems to agree, since they all have government-run testing. > > > > > > Just stirring up some discussion ;-), > > > > Jean > > > > > > > > >