The SAT Quandary

A month has past since the first glimpse of the new SAT. The buzz has abated and will intensify again once details are disclosed on April 16th. In an attempt to improve the silence, I share here what Im seeing, and not seeing.Though highlights of changes have been suitably covered in the media, responding discourse has mostly circumvented what should be our central concern. Despite change the SAT has undergone over the years, what the test is has always mattered less than what the test does. Rather than anticipate what the new test will contain, we should more scrutinize what the new test will reliably do: face validity versus predictive validity. If the former were to supplant the latter, the tests relevance in college admissions would decline.Face validity is when a test feels on its face to measure what is deemed important. Psychometrically, this is the weakest form of evidence; ironic, given the SAT’s move toward testing one’s ability to anchor answers to evidence. That a test seems to measure something doesnt mean it does. However, face validity is important because it affects public attitudes toward a test. Sound familiar?Predictive validity is when a score positively correlates with criteria measured in the future. The SAT is only relevant if colleges can rely on its predictive validity. If the new test became less assuring than its ancestors of this promise, its meaningfulness would taper, but we’d need years to know that for sure. Meanwhile, colleges will accept it on its face, or not.Predictive validity is pertinent because of what we didnt hear, for once, on March 5th. Previously, we heard that the new SAT would improve its differentiation at its tails. Given what I know about test construction, I was skeptical. Because as more is asked of the SAT, might it do fewer things well? As it soon flexes to do more by ostensibly testing less, no less something will have to give. And until we see countervailing evidence, I sense the tes ts optics will diminish.You cant get finer scores than the questions you have available. Try to imagine a test that at once improves its differentiation and focuses on fewer things those few things weve been sententiously told, matter most. Or a test that opens more doors of opportunity and transforms possibilities for everyone and anyone and still makes meaningful distinctions across a broad range of applicants. The test is shortening, its breadth narrowing, and its questions may take longer to answer (restricted use of calculators, evidence-supportedanswers, more complex equations and analysis, more reading). And without deductions for wrong answers, the range of possible raw points shrinks further. This redesign is a radical dream and a psychometric nightmare.So while much focus will be on how these changes will treat test takers, the bigger issue is how they might trammel the test makers. Shorten the test, narrow its focus and perhaps reduce the number of possible raw outcomes can they really do all this and improve the test’s performance? Or, is this a shift in utility? A surrendering of a once high stakes differentiator, recast as a capstone exam; a test that pushes out rather than pulls in?And while the noble mission of delivering opportunity to under-represented students is well stated, I fear unintended consequences. The original SAT was meant to reveal latent potential in unlikely places, to discover talent in students who dont necessarily have classical educations. Over time, the test was said to have lost its way. However, might new changes only further undermine that original goal? It is said the new test will be modeled on work of our best classroom teachers and the most rigorous course work. Who will that most benefit? Might the test become even more yielding to the most advantaged students and even more futile for those most hindered?If so, then will the test distinguish between two otherwise outstanding applicants as well as it does n ow? While unpopular to discuss out loud, selective colleges find the conspicuous difference of 300 SAT points between two otherwise comparable applicants consequential. If that difference is obscured, the test becomes less useful to its consumers.And the footing gets even more dangerous with the tests handling of sub-populations. That the SAT correlates with family income, for example, has not been a design flaw its been a usage flaw. If the new test were engineered to break that correlation it would earn a pyrrhic victory on its way to defeat. Despite what some think, and even claim, colleges dont exactly need a test on which sub-populations do better. Rather, they want a test that better identifies which individuals of a sub-population will most likely succeed. A sudden rise in scores among sub-groups is no promise that it will. And if traditionally underperforming groups further underperform, well, then thats even a bigger problem.To be fair, weve been assured that previous scor es will map to new scores, which implies the normalcy of the bell curve will remain apparent. But the alignment of scores, given the narrowing of the test, could involve a smushing of scores a side effect that refutes earlier indications that the SAT will soon get better at distinguishing among students.For all its limitations, the SAT has endured because it reliably distributes, by design, symmetry of outcomes every year. What that distribution means is another matter. Changes to the test can crown different winners but it cant crown more winners unless it becomes a test of mastery. And a test of mastery will have either a negative or positive skew, take your pick. AP Exams and Subject Tests exemplify this.And this is where President Coleman seems understandably torn: his background is in mastery but the mission of the SAT has long been differentiation. Can he yoke these competing ideals? Perhaps to a degree, but that would redefine the SAT and would be a gamble I am unsure member colleges are prepared to take.

The Relationship of USA and Russia Cubas Negative Impact...

The Relationship of USA and Russia: Cubas Negative Impact The relationship between the two superpowers of USA and Russia worsened between 1959 and the summer of 1963 because of Castro’s revolution in Cuba. This increased tensions between the two superpowers, as Castro was a Marxist who had overthrown Batista who was a pro America dictator. This angered America as now they had a communist country right next to them. America did not want communism to spread out of Eastern Europe, and they were using policies of containment to stop the spread. This revolution led America to stopped buying Cuban sugar, which caused a further build up of tension between the USA and Russia. They stopped buying†¦show more content†¦In the U2 spy plane incident Russian shot down an American spy plane over the Ural Mountains and it crashed near Sverdlousk. This gave Russia proof that USA was spying and made Eisenhower very unpopular. Just before this event there was a â€Å"thaw† taking place in the cold war in which progress bet ween the two nations improved but this incident ended that progress and therefore made tension increase between the superpowers. Relations between the superpowers leaders also worsened because of the U2 incident as Eisenhower refused to meet Khrushev’s demands, to apologise, stop future flights and punish those responsible. The Berlin wall being built also created tension between the superpowers as this event signalled the end of the wartime alliance Russia and America had been in. This event also set the trend for the rest of the cold war as USA and Russia used tactics to threaten but not to kill. All of these were big factors to why Russia and Americas relationship deteriorated but I think the most important reason was Russia placing missiles on Cuba. This increased tension, as America was very scared because for the first time their citizens were under direct threat as the Cuban missiles could bomb a range of 2000 miles into America with a flight time of 17 minutes, killing up to 800 million Americans. It also increased tension between the two powers as Russia had lied to

Ethical Analysis free essay sample

Ethical Issue Based on this case study, the ethically dubious behaviour exhibited by the NKF is that the fund-raising strategies and tactics were too aggressive and the organization is not fiscally responsible. These marketing practices distort and demean the aim of a charity organization and give the public the perception that it is all for the patients’ benefits while the top management actually made use of the public’s empathy and overspent the funds on administrative and marketing activities. The lack of transparency of how the raised funds are distributed in the organisation to help the patients and the lack of intervention of the government resulted in such perquisite taking actions. Ethical lapses undermine the trust the public holds in the entire organization. As such, the ethical issue present is that misuse of raised funds. To examine this issue in detail, the ethical principles of utilitarianism, deontological ethics and the conventional approach will be considered. Key Stakeholders In this case, the key stakeholders involved are CEO Durai, donors and patients. The CEO is concerned about raising more funds. By various ways of marketing and branding the non-profit organization aggressively, there is a significant increase in the number of donors, increasing the funds raised and accumulating more reserves. Under the leadership of Durai, there is no doubt empire building in the organization given that there are ’48 departments reporting to the CEO’. Donors want to make sure that their donations are spent on the right areas, especially those with low incomes. While donors make donations to the NKF organization, they may derive other benefits from their contributions such as tax-deductible donations, self-satisfaction, publications and enhance reputation. Patients are supposedly the sole benefiters in the situation since the NKF is set up to help them. Yet, they may not receive as much benefits as they are promised because the organization tends to focus on the administrative and marketing sectors as well as the fact that CEO is involved in perquisite taking. Theoretical Perspectives The principle of utilitarianism is a moral principle that holds that the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. In this context, when Durai markets the non-profit organization to the public, it is easier to persuade the public to make their donations, leading to higher funds raised and generating positive utility. However, kidney patients who need more subsidies for the kidney treatment benefit less since more money was channelled to other areas and thus they suffered negative utility. When considering total utility in this situation, personal target of CEO is not as important as the treatment for kidney patients as health is one of the greatest assets. Hence, negative utility outweighs positive utility generated, thus from the utilitarian perspective, such actions are unethical. Deontological Ethics states that a decision or action is only deemed ethical if it conforms to moral principles. In this context, the CEO is morally unethical since he worked based on his self-interest instead of that of the kidney patients. He was involved in perquisite taking as shown by the golden toilet and financial discrepancies in the account. It morally wrong to gain advantages from a non-profit organization that started with the aim of helping kidney patients. The conventional approach holds that individuals should compare their decisions or actions against the norms of acceptability in his society before reaching a decision. In this case, the degree of marketing NKF as a product to earn highest possible revenue should be compare to that of the other non-profit organizations in Singapore. However, the extent of such actions is uncertain. If it is a norm for charity organization to publicise through TV shows and dramas aggressively, their actions would be ethical from the perspective of the conventional approach. If not, it would be deemed unethical. Uncertainties There are three major uncertainties in this situation. Firstly, there is a the question of whether donors should completely rely on the series of mass media initiatives ranging from its popular live TV variety shows, television dramas and community outreach programmes. Although these initiatives enabled the NKF brand to spread deep into the suburban heartlands of Singapore, ultimately the donors should make sure they fully understand how the funds are distributed to help the kidney patients before making their donations. If they are unsure of the distribution due to the low level of transparency in the budget process of NKF organization or cannot verify the information given by the NKF management, it is their responsibility not to make their donations. Secondly, it is uncertain to what extent it is a common practice across most of the major non-profit organizations in Singapore to market their organization aggressively though media and all the possible channels. If most of the organizations do so, this action would be ethical from the perspective of the conventional approach. Conversely, if a minority of the charities do so, the conventional approach would deem the action unethical. Lastly, there is uncertainty based on the theory of distributive justice. It assumes that individuals form judgments about the propriety of rewards allocations based upon social comparisons across individuals. In this context, different individuals in the organization has different responsibilities, but since there is no basis of comparison, money and reward are not meted out properly and thus issues of distributive justice arise. Conclusion From the perspective of utilitarianism and deontological ethics, the act of aggressive marketing to benefit CEO’s self interest and ambitions is deemed to be largely unethical while analysis using the conventional approach explained that there are uncertainties involved. Not only should the fundraising materials and solicitations be honest  but the organization should use the funds for the purpose specified before the donation was made. Government should also be blamed for poor judgment and dereliction of duty as a watchdog of NKF organization that handles so much public money. Before making a donation, the donors should have the basic knowledge of the distribution of the funds within the organization and not rely on all the media publicity and attractive prizes. Hence, it should be concluded that aggressive marketing practices are unethical since these has transformed the non-profit organization into one that earns revenue from the public’s empathy.