E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSStudents taking SAT and ACT college entrance exams this fall will have to submit photo IDs with their applications after a widespread cheating scandal at a number of New York high schools, officials announced Tuesday.
The security change is one of a number of initiatives nationwide following the arrest of 20 current or former high school students accused in a cheating scheme. Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice said some of the students were paid as much as $3,500 to stand in for other students on the SAT exam, a key barometer for many colleges determining admissions.
"Those who try to cheat will be caught. A fake ID simply won't work to game the system anymore," Rice told Newsday during a press conference on Tuesday. "The problem is that we have kids who think cheating pays ... We have to disabuse them of that idea. If we don't, they're going to be the corrupt -- fill in the blank -- politicians, CEOs, of the future."
She said 50 students were likely involved in the New York scheme, but she only had evidence to arrest 20. The prosecution cases against the 20 students are still pending.
Students surrender in SAT cheating scandal in NY
Rice complained that security procedures were too lax, and was particularly incensed when she learned that one male student allegedly stood in for a female on one occasion. She said students have easy access to phony identification cards, making it difficult for administrators at testing sites to determine if a student is actually who he or she claims to be.
"These reforms close a gaping hole in standardized test security that allowed students to cheat and steal admissions offers and scholarship money from kids who play by the rules," Rice said.
During the 2010-11 school year, the SAT was administered to nearly 3 million students worldwide; 1.6 million students took the ACT in 2011.
"We are committed to ensuring that every student has the opportunity to pursue higher education," Kathryn Juric, vice president of SAT at the College Board, told Newsday.
'Spot checks'
The new testing requirements include making students upload a photograph of themselves when they register for the SAT or ACT. Those unable to upload a photo will be permitted to mail in a photo, which will be scanned by the testing agency.
Then, an admission ticket into the testing site, containing the scanned photo, will be mailed to the student.
The photo will not only be printed on the admission ticket, but on the test site roster, and can be checked against the photo ID a student provides at the test center. That photo will be attached to students' scores as they are reported to high schools and colleges.
Other changes include checking student IDs more frequently at test centers; IDs will be checked when students enter a test site, and whenever they re-enter the test room after breaks, and again when the answer sheets are collected.
Testing companies also may conduct "spot checks" with enhanced security at random test locations, or where cheating is suspected. Proctors also will receive additional training to help them identify cheaters and high school and college officials will receive more information about reporting suspected cheating to testing companies.
A spokesman for The College Board noted that some of the security enhancements were developed in consultation with a security firm run by former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
"By implementing these changes, the College Board and ETS can maintain an honest and fair testing environment for the millions of students who take the SAT each year as part of the college admission process," said a statement issued by the College Board.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
Makes you wonder how many schools who post improved student achievements are actually students who have learned to beat the system and steal tests, hack records, etc.
Most reports indicate that that the majority of improvements in most schools aren't genuine. Beating the system has become a very large and very profitable venture for students. Taking the ACT test a couple of times for other students can easily pay for a year of college.
Oh, oh,....look out SAT people who are requiring a photo ID; the Democrats, ACLU, and media will accuse you of being racist.....you know, like they do with the voter ID card proponenets.
Stats will show that it's mainly the wealthy students who cheat on SAT's as well as other testing, i.e, Medical School, Law School, etc.
For those who are determined to cheat, this is just a roadblock. They will find another highway on which to travel: stolen tests, memorized test answers, manipulated scoring machines, bribery, anything will work. The more complex the security becomes, the more innovative the cheaters (or the facilitators of cheaters) will become. Sadly, honorable folks are becoming fewer and fewer.
The tests serve a purpose, but perhaps too much value is placed on their results. I know many brilliant people who are terrible at taking tests. They have creative talents and excel in many fields, but academia is a horror to them. Someday, I would hope that we could get beyond these measuring devices and actually accomplish something. Oh well. I guess time will tell.
In the meantime, I guess the test givers will need to find new jumping hoops for the test takers; perhaps a change up from year to year, will help keep some cheaters at bay.
I'm not arguing with the security measures, but I think assuming those who cheat will become corrupt public officials is giving standardized tests, and college itself, a bit too much credibility. I cheated and coasted my way through the classes that had no bearing on what I wanted to do / now do in life, and I'm far from corrupt or criminal.
I mean, when is the last time you used trigonometry? If anything, someone doing what is necessary to succeed in college is a skill far more relevant than selecting the order of some stupid shapes.
It's a little harder to cheat on the LSAT--they take your fingerprints as well as require a photograph. They've been doing that for years.
It is the wealthy students who cheat on the SAT and ACT--because it is easier for them to hire someone. In the case of poorer students, it's usually a friend or family member that will sit the test. Obviously, if you have a twin or a sibling or a cousin who looks almost exactly like you, pictures are still not going to help a lot--so the picture method affects mostly the wealthier students.
They need to just put a fingerprint on the test itself. Then, if they have a question as to who took a given test, the fingerprint should resolve the problem. Retina scans do the same thing. But, cheating is going to continue--the students are very good at it now.
This is blatant discrimination. This is an attempt to keep minorities from taking test. Do the powers at be know of the expense of getting an ID? Do they realize some of these v... test takers don't drive? There are no cases of voter fr... whoops... no cases of test fraud. Okay, maybe there are cases of voter fraud... damn... there I go again, cases of test fraud but to make everyone now show ID to minimize coruption is too restrictive and will harm minority vot... test takers.
We need Eric Holder and the Justice Department to quickly drop everything they're not doing and start an investigation into this injustice.
"The photo will not only be printed on the admission ticket, but on the test site roster, and can be checked against the photo ID a student provides at the test center. That photo will be attached to students' scores as they are reported to high schools and colleges."
That's a pretty effective screening process.
Jack Colton " I cheated and coasted my way through the classes that had no bearing on what I wanted to do / now do in life, and I'm far from corrupt or criminal."
So you were corrupt then and saw nothing wrong with it, but now you're 'honest'? How can anybody be sure?
Roy: You are seriously equating corruption, with coasting and cheating through BS required courses in school? If you were right, about half of all high school and college students would eventually be indicted for skimming money and taking bribes. Life isn't that cut and dry, and plenty of people don't fit the "standardized" mold.
As an example of my time in high school, I was skipping and coasting the required 'Intro to Computers,' while being paid after school to tutor members of the school's administration on how to use their computers. What you call "corrupt," I call not wasting my time in a required class that I literally could have taught.
Again, I personally feel far too much emphasis is placed on kids going to college, which then leads to them stressing out about those stupid tests. I have nothing but respect for my friends who went on to finish college, but my choosing not to was a MUCH better path for me.
Kids who think cheating pays?..... Cheating do pay. Plenty of examples. Politicians, Bernie Maddoff, Bank of America, Goldman Sach, Former NJ gov Corzine, Wallstreet, corruption in Aghanistan / Iraq, etc .................
Lesson learned? If it's white collar crime, you will get a slap on the wrist. If it's blue collar crime, heavy lockup times and fines.
This makes me think about the question of needing a photo ID to vote.
If you need an ID for a state test why wouldn’t you need one for a state vote?????
For voting, the issue lies more in the types of photo Ids that are acceptable.
For example, in TX I believe they don't accept a student Id for voting Id. Guess who college students tend to vote for? That's a good chunk of the controversy behind photo Ids and voting.
Because the impact on poor and disabled people has been proven to impede their access to voting if they are required to have a state ID. It's similar to a poll tax which has been ruled unconstitutional. And there is absolutely no evidence of widespread voter fraud anywhere. Maybe 30 instances over the past 10 years. Because of the impact on certain segments of the population, it is unconstitutional. Republicans want it because the poor, elderly and disabled tend to vote for Democrats. It's all politics.
Gee Crabby, your allegations might actually hold some water if you provided at least one source for those iffy statistics......"maybe" 30 instances over the past 10 years??
Lem,
easy answer; voting is a constitutional right, college admission is not.
I'm as democrat as they come, but I don't think having someone prove their identity when voting is asking too much. You can't function in today's world without one, ie opening a bank account, driving, employment, cashing checks, using a credit card, drinking, buying cigarettes, contracts, etc.
If there are enough legitimate cases where older or disabled citizens are unable to obtain a photo ID, then a simple solution is to have an easy form that their care provider can send in for them to receive an acceptable alternative.
Yes, people who are poor frequently operate in a world where they do not need photo IDs. They are paid in cash, they pay others in cash, they never go to banks--especially the elderly in urban areas who never had a birth certificate to begin with, do not have the right kind of IDs.
There have been very few cases of individual voter fraud--go look it up, it's pretty easy to find. There are more cases in which people in charge of voting have been convicted of artificially suppressing the vote or inventing ballots and stuffing the ballot box.
Seriously--not that many people vote to begin with. The kind of people who vote tend to take it seriously. The sorts of people who are liars and thieves aren't the sorts of people who vote. An individual voter isn't going to make a substantial impact on a final outcome--one would have to find an organized group of people doing it, and that would have made the news. Even ACORN--which was employing people with a shaky sense of morals--wasn't found to be doing voter fraud. The only voter issue was that some of their workers (again, not people of high morals) were found to have lied about how many people they registered so as to be paid money they hadn't earned. The employees had poor morals--but the organization was not found to be doing anything wrong (well, other than not screening their employees well).
It wouldn't be worth anyone's time to do voter fraud--not individually--the only thing that is "worthwhile" is to be the one monitoring a polling place or the one who can toss ballots without recording them and without anyone noticing it. Use some common sense.
But, a photograph is cheap. The kind of ID required to vote, in many cases, is prohibitively expensive--especially for older people who don't have a birth certificate, would have to hire a lawyer and jump through a lot of hoops, and still might not be able to vote--even though they served during WWII and have voted in every election since Ike.
Agree Lem, what is the difference between proving you are a legal citizen ?
beanathome, ...........There have been very few cases of individual voter fraud ?.....Without being able to check all the voter Photo IDs of all those who have ever voted, how could you be so certain ?....FYI, most state photo IDs are less than $7, so who cannot scrape up that much for the right to vote
PS: birth certificates just cost a couple dollars also, enough excuses
Beanathome: Perhaps one could argue that those who frequently operate in the cash only society could use an ID to move forward in their lives? As Ellis said above, it isn't THAT difficult to get an ID, and the handful of "elderly people in urban areas who don't have a birth certificate," likely have bigger issues to confront. If they never had a birth certificate, then they also never were assigned a social security number, haven't ever paid taxes, aren't eligible for medical benefits, and can't even prove that they are citizens of this country. One might assume that people who have lived so long off the grid aren't exactly rushing to the ballot boxes.
Ellis, it's generally up to the individual proposing a new law to demonstrate why that law is required and to show that the law will not cause more harm than good. This requires showing that the cases of voter fraud are high enough to warrant attention despite the cases of disenfranchisement that would arise due to clerical error, delays, lost paperwork, lost IDs, etc. Here's an analogy for you. Let's say I believe that in order to buy a table, you have to first prove you own a chair. This is because people that buy tables without chairs sit on the non-chair and fall over. Clearly there should be a law in place for this because without being able to check all sitting arrangements, we can't actually know how many cases of falls happen. This analogy is using your same logic. You can't prove something isn't happening so it's ok to make a law trying to stop it without regard to the negative repercussions such a law would have.
Additionally, you neglected the cost of the time spent getting the correct ID. If it costs someone $7 and an unspecified amount of time to vote, they may be discouraged from voting and decide that it's not worth it. The goal of a democratically based government should be to attempt to get more people to vote and learn the issues which will affect their vote, not discourage voting through paperwork or fees. I had to help my brother get his birth certificate through the mail. It took almost 6 months and many phone calls before it arrived.... It also cost $10 for a certified copy. In TX and CA, the cost is $15. In NY the cost is $30. So what you initially said was maybe $10 worth of cost can turn out to be $30 or more with the possibility of several lost hours. Think of the line you waited in at the DMV to get your picture taken for the driver's license.
For Spider and Lem. The law you're advocating for might actually have merit if you could provide evidence or support that there is a serious voting fraud issue that requires attention and that such a law would not adversely effect those in the aging, disabled, or poor population. If it did adversely affect such groups, then you need to provide a detailed analysis of how reducing the voting fraud but still adversely affecting such groups is a net gain for society. Since you want to add in another law, the burden of proof is on you.
For Jack, what you're missing is that, while it is possible to get the correct ID to vote, it can and will be very time consuming for certain people (clerical errors, delays due to under-staffing, long lines, etc). This is the obstacle that stops people from doing such things rather than a governmental body telling them "no they're not allowed".
Now, I should probably counter the argument that my postings are going to elicit. Here it is "Well if they're not willing to spend a little bit of time on it, then they don't deserve to be able to vote". here's the counter. That argument was used during the poll tax days. It was also declared unconstitutional because such rights were already given to the individual and couldn't "sold" to them.
Finally, Jack, it doesn't matter if you assume that an individual living off grid will not be rushing to the ballot box. If your law makes it more difficult for them to do so if/when they do decide to exercise a constitutional right, then you need to demonstrate a societal cost that this law solves which is worth possible infringement on that person's rights. Your assumptions of their likelihood to exercise such rights isn't a valid example of this demonstration.
Doggy: I've too assisted elderly and disabled family members and friends before, and there are plenty of avenues for them to have a proper government issued ID. If I wanted to, I could order a certified copy of your birth certificate online and have it in hand in two weeks. These things aren't as difficult as you are making them out to be. Moreover, ID cards and driver's licenses are good for 4 - 6 years, passports are good for a decade, both can usually be renewed by mail, and social security cards are with you for life.
People should have to prove their identity and eligibility to vote. That isn't asking too much.
Jack, it doesn't matter if you have ordered a copy and had it arrive in 2 weeks, what matters are the cases where there are delays that make it take longer since these are what can prevent a person from voting. You may have been able to order a copy of your birth certificate or a relatives and have it arrive in 2 weeks. This does not discount that fact that when other people do this in the same fashion, it can and has taken a very long time to arrive. Your sample size of 1-5 is not an adequate measurement of the spectrum of time lengths that can arise due to having 50 states with different procedures. You're trying to state that cases of long delays are either very rare or non-existent with a very small sample size. I'm stating that such cases exist and that they must be factored into a decision regarding a new law.
You're also neglecting a very important fact. Your elderly and disabled family members/friends required your help to get their birth certificate. Not every disabled/elderly family member has such help. There are also many elderly that have significant difficulty with doing things online.
Once again, I'll use my chair/table analogy from before. People should have to prove they own a chair before buying a table, it's not very difficult, a picture will do. Should that become law because it's easy in my mind to prove you own a chair? Probably not because the law doesn't actually result in any improvement of a problem and cost the individual time. You need to demonstrate that there is rampant voter fraud and show how this law will prevent such voter fraud. You also have to show how the societal gain from preventing that voter fraud is worth the cost of various people being disenfranchised by delays, cost of obtaining the ID/birth certificate, etc. That cost will not be 0 even if you happened to have had a positive experience when ordering your, your family's, or your friend's birth certificate.
Finally, it doesn't matter how long the cards are good for or how quickly you believe you can get them online. When making a new law the focus is (or at least should be) on the individuals that will be adversely affected by application of the law. That is the cost of having a new law. If the benefit of having the new law doesn't outweigh the cost, then it's a poor law. This is actually a very significant problem in the legal world right now. Many laws are passed with heavy initial support because the electorate doesn't actually take the time to think about the costs of having such a law. Here's a perfect example, the sex offender registry. When initially proposed, it had a large amount of support because the people supporting it had a child molester in mind that gets out of prison and tries to molest again. Now, you can be put on the registry if you urinate in public. So, what started out as a decent idea has been literally destroyed because the law wasn't written with well defined limits on its application. Another example would be the 3-strikes your out laws. Without an analysis to show there is rampant voter fraud that will be fixed with an ID system and that this fix will benefit society more than the cost of disenfranchisement of a segment of the population, then the law is not well thought out and very stupid.
If proving ones identity to the satisfaction of the state results in a loss of voting rights without actually preventing voter fraud, then yes, that is asking too much.
Doggy: There are already 30 states where you are required to have a valid state issued driver's license or proper identification card in order to even register to vote. Then when you get to the polls, you have to show an approved ID before you get your voter ID card to use in the ballot box. Many of the approved IDs these states use range from utility bills, paychecks, to bank statements. Anything that shows the name and address of the voter.
People who feel they are eligible to vote, but who are unable to prove their identity through traditional means also have plenty of ways to directly contact the election office beforehand. They can call, email, fax, send a letter, or show up in person.
Because of the "poll tax" laws you've already mentioned, states are federally required to make sure voting doesn't cost anything, and have various free ID programs in order to comply.
So, again, I don't think requiring ID to vote is as big of an issue as you are trying to make it. There are only 20 states that don't currently require it, and it is safe to say a federal mandate would also continue to make exceptions and provide access to those who can't muster up the effort to live in the 21st century. I'd personally like to think that the United States had a secure election system. Hell, even Iraq stamps the hands of people who have already voted.
And the voting fraud issue isn't nearly as bad as you're trying to make it. Can you demonstrate that there is enough voting fraud to warrant an ID law? If it's worth what it would cost many people in time or money then surely you can demonstrate this societal cost and show how it is outweighed by the cost to the individual. You should also be able to show how this ID law prevents the type of voting fraud our system has to deal with.
This ID law that is being proposed does nothing to ensure that the US has a secure election system because voting fraud that actually has an effect doesn't occur at the ballot box level. People that would vote several times or votes from non eligible people don't actually sway elections because that process is very inefficient. Ballot box stuffing, which occurs after the ID issue has been done, change election results and it's far easier then trying to hire the thousands of people you would need to go to the polling place and cast a vote. This law does nothing to actually stop serious voting fraud but has the potential to take away voting rights from legal citizens or make those voting rights more difficult to exercise. That's why it's a stupid law. It tries to solve a non-existent problem in a very stupid way.
Finally, again, it doesn't matter if a citizen has plenty of ways to prove their identity. Such a process can and has taken much longer than one would hope due to delays, paperwork, etc. It's those cases for which the law must be measured, not the ones were everything was peachy. This cost is measured against the benefit of having such a law. You have not demonstrated how having this law provides a more secure voting system than the current one (benefit). In order to do this, you must demonstrate significant voting fraud done at the ballot box level which would be prevented by an ID check. Otherwise, you are simply adding more unnecessary paperwork, high monetary cost, and the possibility of harm without providing a benefit. If you ever wonder why governmental systems seem to be slow, inefficient, and outright stupid with many of there rules and regulations, it's because of little laws like this one. Laws which don't actually provide a benefit but still require time/effort to work through. You want to add another one.
It is however quite amusing seeing such laws be proposed by a party that claims it wants to have a smaller conservative government. A conservative government would shy away from making laws without a very detailed analysis of the cost and the benefit provided. It would also shy away from creating more unnecessary regulations that would simply cost individuals and the government money and time.
Cheating always pays, just look at all of the financial problems and the perpetrators get away with it.
People will always cheat until they get caught and change the system.
They got their work cut out for them because there are a whole lotta shifty eyed, rubbernecks in today's high schools.
Now make a test for Voter IDs and Politicians running for office?
They also need to crack down on the MCAT and LSAT. I know someone who has taken the MCAT several times and he spends the entire time writing down the questions to give to Princeton Review. He is an instructor for Princeton Review. He came in with little pieces of paper up his sleeve and he wrote the questions on the paper.
this is not a good thing. how are we going to compete with china if our kids don't have a good sat score?
Easy, we'll just use the kids from India!
I know our school district does not have ID cards. I wonder how this will impact students already registered for the test, especially younger students who don't have learner's permits or driver's licenses. Will the letter from the school still suffice or will they have to reschedule?
You are already required to have a photo ID while testing. This really isn't a big deal.
ID to take a school test........and we let many vote how to run our country with no ID
LMAO REALY..........WOW
Students will have to submit to "photo ID's to nationwide in order to take SAT and ACT college entrance exams. This is being done to ensure that the applicant is the one taking the exam, and essentially to stop cheating. Some of the security enhancements were initiated by a former FBI agent's security firm. AMAZING!!! Requiring a valid ID before testing to ensure authenticity of the applicant. What a novel approach to legality. Why then is the left side of our political equation so "dead set against" this same procedure to ensure fair and legitimate elections? I am confused.
Rut Roh Shaggy! The democrats aren't gonna like this. Ya don't need to have a photo id to vote, but you damn sure better have one if you are a high school student taking the SAT. I would love to have somebody out there in the liberal la la land pour me some of their kool aid and tell me why this is so different
Get yourself a life....All this blah blah blah liberals blah blah blah conservatives blah blah blah....Tell us oh gifted and brilliant one...Name a President who in the last 40 years has done squat for this Country. Name any Politician that has done anything for anyone. Its the easiest job in the World. About as easy as being a Rock Star. Money for nothing and the chicks are free.
Ronald Reagan. Made us militarily strong enough not to be considered the world's bitch anymore.
Oh I remember him well...Trickle down economics was his program. As usual the top 2% got richer and the middle class didn't even get moist.
You said name one. I gave an example. Most of the other President's were forgettable at best. Clinton had his moments,though.
Students have to show photo ID's, but illegals living in this Country don't have to show squat. Maybe the students should start protesting. We live in a multiple standard Country.
So, if I want to hire a stand-in for my SAT, I have to prepare a fake Photo ID with my name and their face a couple of months earlier when registering. This leaves it up to the colleges to check the eventual college ID photo against the SAT Test Photo. Hmmm. I wonder how many colleges will bother with this step, once the tuition has been paid? Are the colleges going to kick out the test cheaters, and admit students on the wait list? This should all be part of the stated policy, not left to chance.
Also, what about the opportunities to cheat by virtue of taking the SAT on a computer? Are the tests given in a Faraday Cage (wireless communication blackout)? How are cheat sheets on USB memory sticks protected against?
Hacking open an internet browser on the test machine?
YaY!
picture ID to take a test, but not to vote, awesome!
its a good thing people don't know how to edit pictures on computers with things like photoshop and MS PAINT! The test looks like it is becoming too much of a hassle to take seriously. If it took these test makers this long to catch on to how people were cheating the system so easily, it will take them longer to catch the new ways people come up with; they were so unimaginative before, I don't see them learning jack from their mistakes.
Kudos to people that work this testing system. Seeing these overprotective measures fail is almost too good to wait for.
This is part of our continued moral decay.
my grandma told me that I used to become the man I wanted to stand.
Its about time! When I was in school students always cheated. And 99% of the time it was the rich or popular kids who did it. Hows that america. All those people now running our country at the top: Liars Cheaters Thieves. Makes you proud. They had no conscience then and they have none now!
Cool go ahead and move out of the U.S. if you hate it so much. I won't miss you. Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out.
All the SAT/ACT prove is that you know how to take a test. And that skill doesn't do you much good after you get out of school...
On the contrary, this will nip their education in the bud. Starting small during their formative years, future politicians, CEOs, and banksters learn that cheating pays. As their careers progress, they move on to grander, more rewarding scams and frauds. Without proper lessons early on, how could they hope to succeed?
Cheating is not acceptable. End of discussion.
I worked in a clerical position in a state-run college in eastern Tennessee. Being federally and state funded,
the "cheating" by students taking SAT's or GED's was well known by the Professors and Administrators in/charge. They made an effort to curb the cheating and false ID's. Not a concerted effort but an effort. The schools are funded according to their accomplishments and educational achievements with the students who
are attending on Government Grants and Loans, and other State programs. The staff at the College was
not a highly successful educational effort and all of the people there were obviously typical state employees
who were under-achievers at best. The fake ID's were rampant and "ghost" participants taking tests on other's behalfs was a common, everyday occurence that was overlooked by most professors and instructors
who could care less if their schedule didn't allow for making efforts in stopping the infractions.
For every action there is a counter action, a wise man once said...
Somehow, someway, kids will figure out a way to cheat.
Personally, I think these tests are a waste of time. If you've got 12 years of grades and grade point averages, it is absurd to give so much weight to one test. What if a kid has a bad day or is ill. Sure, you may be able to retest under certain circumstances, but what a pain in the arse.
And given the language of today, especially with everyone texting ridiculous abbreviations without even simple punctuation, is it really necessary to know the meanings of archaic words that virtually NO ONE USES anymore? Latin and Greek roots, give me a break. If you are going to teach English literature or something then MAYBE having a commanding knowledge of those things is useful, but with google ready at ones fingertips it just doesn't make sense anymore.
I still remember some of the ridiculous math problems from those tests. The two trains traveling at different speeds from Omaha and Cincinnati. An isosceles triangle? Give me a break! Why don't they put some problems in that would test REAL LIFE SITUATIONS. Imagine: Grandpa has to have his medications refilled for the next month. His doctor might change them at his next appointment, but that isn't for three weeks and he needs them now. He'd like to just get three weeks worth, but his insurance insists on a 90 day supply. Assuming he pays $300.00 per month in premiums and 15-30% of the cost of formulary drugs, how much of his $1260.00 social security check will get to keep if he takes the following medications and he also pays the following monthly amounts listed? (List follows)
Now that would identify the real brainiacs.
I wouldn't be so sure it is a waste of time.
12 years of high school grades you say? What are high school grades worth these days? Tell me! They're worth nothing, they tell nothing. They depend entirely on the school you're in.
If you're in a good school, you have to take hard tests and an average student has average grades. Now if you're in a low-level public school that has to fill quotas for subventions, the teachers make the tests ridiculously easy and, if it isn't enough, they cheat and help the students. So the whole class looks like it's packed with geniuses.
A nationwide test is a good thing to really evaluate a student, especially in a country as heterogeneous as the US. And if you had taken it, you would know that you can take it on several days in a year so it's not like your whole life depends on one test.
And your comment about texting language is just plain stupid! Do you write motivation letters in texting? Is it not useful to know that "hypo-" means "under" in Greek so you don't have to look up every word that start with "hypo" in the dictionary? Like in the sentence: "Your brain is in hypofunction!"
And don't you know that these tests are subdivided into categories: math, science, English,reading? So they tell you if you're good or not in the branch you're planning to go in. And I don't think being able to comprehend a text correctly without Google should be reserved to the English literature grads.
Finally, if you put math and English aside, stating they are ridiculous, I don't know what on earth you are going to study after high school because you will need them in pretty much anything.
Thanks for the Voice of wisdom anyway!