From what I can gather and infer, the SAT was originally not a test of knowledge as much as aptitude for learning.
This was needed to truly level the playing field so that people from the best prep schools would be on an even footing with those that had been taught in one room rural schoolhouses.
The facts that the people sitting the test had retained from their education were less important than being able to demonstrate that they were 'teachable' and that they had an innate ability to reason. The SAT at that time was a good proxy for 'g'.
Over the first 3 decades of its widespread use it had a tremendous meritocratic effect on American society and many returning servicemen were able to take advantage of the GI bills and rise from poverty blighted circumstances to being affluent and respected members of the professional class.
There was one fatal flaw; it was too fair - could not be prepped for. Worse yet, people that weren't very clever - from the affluent to the poorest - were not making the cut.
So from 1974 onwards the SAT has been steadily dumbed down. Dumbing it down allowed it to be prepped for and prepping costs money. What started off as a paragon of fairness was twisted into the mess that we have today. A test that allows affluent parents to have their offspring coached into getting perfect scores while children from disadvantaged schools are left far behind.
The SAT does need changing - changing back to being more 'g' loaded not less.
Last edited by madeinuk; 03/07/14 12:55 PM.
