College board is a sitting duck

Hooray!

Finally, the jurors will have the say about College Board and their discriminatory and fake tests.

I am already checking my mail – to make sure I do not miss – the prospective juror notice to appear – that will be the day, I will stick it to College Board, by awarding an incredible amount of dollars to the plaintiffs.

I will also add, admissions employees should be sued too, because they rely on those fake test.

David Robertson, Professor at SUNY, at 1:30 pm EDT on April 10, 2006

12 angry men

Hmm….hmmm

Just imagine how many parents, students who were disappointed with the results of the test? Simply how many people do you think scored below 1200 – and felt wronged? Can we say 90% of test takers? And that is such a huge pool of jurors, who want to get even with the College Board – and this case is godsend to them.

Lets imagine what is the percentage that scored over 1300 of the old test? Maybe less than 5%; I wish the judge who sits to hear the case; be the one who scored less than 1200 and his parents wished him to be an MD and is African American, wow.

Kevin, I believe you love the College Board, but this is a class action – 500,000 test takers – lets assume each one is awarded 20 million in damages [this is because there are great lawyers – who can assess the projected income of the plaintiffs – which was harmed because of the corrupted test] now put your money where your mouth is, save the College Board, bubble reading machines and contribute to them, before they go belly up – if you do own shares of College Board – I do not know what to advice you about them – those papers can be useful for other purposes.

College Board will be found guilty 1600 times or the new one; guilty 2400 times.

David Robertson, Professor at SUNY, at 6:35 pm EDT on April 10, 2006

objectivity and discovery

Professor Robertson, It is unlikely that this case will ever be before a jury. Why? In simple terms: most civil cases never make it to juries. Secondly, it appears that the parties are seeking equitable relief (that is, release of information), to which one is generally not entitled to a jury trial.

As a substantive matter, a lot of this lawsuit (as it is reported) seems ill-conceived. Indeed, if the parties are intending to use discovery material just to disclose it to others (and brag about it), they are going to have to explain how the relief that they were seeking was just a guise to get discovery material. (Also, if disclosure of information is the ultimate goal of a lawsuit, such an order is generally immediately subject to review.)

But, I would be interested in seeing the actual complaint.

Also, Mr. Robertson, there was no mention in the article of discrimination. However, I don’t see what is wrong with discriminating against people on the basis of their test scores. Only lazy people (and, of course, underage drinkers) score badly on tests. Maybe if the families of low-scorers would make them study, and throw out the TV and car keys, they wouldn’t have the embarrassment of a low-scorer.

Kevin, Whether the test is “objective” or not is a more nuanced question. Of course there is an answer that will be scored correctly, but it is only correct because such a resolution of the problem is generally accepted. Whatever the case, I have no patience for people that score badly on standardized tests or people that make excuses for them.

Larry, at 8:05 pm EDT on April 10, 2006

Only lazy people (and, of course, underage drinkers) score badly on tests.

And those of us who might have learning disabilities that makes it difficult for us to fill in the bubbles. For example, I have a visual processing disorder which causes the bubbles to appear to be moving around in front of my eyes. As you can imagine, this made it very difficult for me to fill in the right bubble, even when I knew the answer (and also induced fits of nausea and made it very difficult to stay focused). My parents wondered for years why I was doing so poorly on standardized tests; I certainly wasn’t lazy or drunk.

This is not such an uncommon problem, and as there are probably many students with diagnosed or undiagnosed visual processing disorders and other learning disabilities, I feel that your statement that people who fail tests are lazy or drunk is completely out of line and unfairly oversimplifies a very complex issue.

Sam, at 4:35 am EDT on April 11, 2006

Forgive me if I missed the sarcasm...

I would like to believe that you are simply satirizing the erroneous assumptions of elitism, Larry. Unfortunately, my recollection of your many similarly arrogant posts leads me to believe otherwise. Allow me to speak for those of us without your vast life experience and superior intellect.

First, thank you for reminding us of the “tough world” in which most of us live. I’m not sure when you were able to visit it, but I’m glad you somehow absorbed that fact. Perhaps you also noticed how many people are trying to improve life for themselves and their families here. You may find this hard to believe, but most of them are doing so without resorting to ‘dishonorable excuses.’ In fact, many of them are attending college, working full time, and otherwise contributing to their communities despite doing poorly on standardized tests. It turns out they weren’t lazy drunks after all. But I guess you wouldn’t have noticed that because you don’t have any patience for people who score badly on such exams.

Although I’m sure your patience is wearing thin even now, might I suggest you take a look outside your own class? You may be surprised at how many competent and even intelligent people you find—people who deal with all types of disabilities and setbacks. You may even find others who have chosen to live here among them when they too could have joined the self-inflating circle of good test-takers. Why would these individuals want to leave the social incompetence of the more “intelligent” culture when their test scores would allow them to stay? How could they possibly want to understand and interact with those deemed less-worthy by such a valuable standard? Perhaps I could explain it to you. But I doubt you would have any patience for that, either.

Melina, at 10:10 pm EDT on April 14, 2006