None of us like SATs or even tests in general. But for that matter none of us like American government much either--though we all pretty much recognize it as "the worst system in the world, except for all the other ones" to conduct affairs of state. So it is with the SATs...it's the worst system, except for all the other ones.

A friend of mine, a chem prof, puts it well:

"...Pitzer's President did show her intellectual weight by choosing that question. It's a very good SAT question because as the article points out, it provide several clues to the correct answer so that if one tipoff isn't known, there are other ways to get there. That's what I have observed smart people to do and it is a great way to measure IQ and natural ability."

Seipp bases a lot of her snide piece on the premise that "baleful" means gloomy. It doesn't. It means portending evil or ominous. This proves Trombley's point, if in a roundabout way.

Skandera is another one of those leftwing loons who populates so much of academia. I'm sure if the SAT was modified to measure a person's understanding of, say, rap music, she'd suddenly embrace it and demand the test be used in screening applicants to her her school.

And she didn't show her "intellectual weight," but her ideological idiocy, by choosing a question that when it comes to the correct answer really isn't ambiguous at all.

(OTOH, it would have been OK if she cited a question---assuming such a ridiculous question even existed on the SAT---along the lines of: "You're invited to the black-tie dinner at the country club, where men and women are expected to wear (a) tuxedos and long gowns, (b) comfortable street clothes and shoes, (c) trendy, hip shirts and pants, (d) jogging outfits.")

Ha! Actually, Henry Sheehan proves my point in a direct way: Even someone who can't define "baleful" correctly can answer that SAT question directly.

Seipp's piece didn't do what I really wanted it to do, which was give a viable alternative to what she was criticizing. I have to give Seipp credit for writing a rhetorically effective hit piece, a nice *attack* on Trombley and her LA Times piece, but not much in the way of substance . . . a stereotypically Californian failing, I might add (even though Seipp's piece implicity sniggers at such failings in Trombley).

Seipp also by all appearances makes an error by generalizing from one instance: the piece is all about how wrong Trombley herself is, yet the headline reads:

"Is the SAT biased or are college presidents nuts?"

I vote yes on both, but the real problem here is that both the headline and the piece itself generalize from *one* example. Please. Intellectual gigantism is not required to know that this method of reasoning is fallacious. Since when does Trombley represent "college presidents?" Last time I checked Trombley wasn't presiding over all of the colleges in the country . . . to say nothing even of the other colleges in Claremont, which I imagine to have different policies from those of Pitzer College. Not that Seipp bothers to check . . . that might require actual work! I venture that the other presidents in the Claremont Colleges will be surprised to wake up and find that Trombley now speaks for them all. And if Trombley does (or does not) in fact speak for even a majority of college presidents, Seipp doesn't bother to indicate that that might be that case. Perhaps other college presidents have something to say about this, either pro or contra? Seipp doesn't care enough to tell the reader.

Although Seipp's piece contains some potentially valuable nuggets, it's a hit piece, written for effect rather than substance. I (for one) am more than happy to entertain the possibility that the SAT is a viable measure of certain academic or intellectual indicators, but Seipp's piece doesn't contribute much in furtherance of that proposition. Instead it's more of a "Gee, aren't things really wacky out there in Claremont! Boy howdy! How about them there colllege presidents! Look out, especially if they're from Iowa and Pepperdine!"

Were I to grade the piece on substance, I'd have to give Ms. Seipp an "F". Her criticisms of Trombley -- whether valid or not -- are rendered essentially mute by her inability to offer even an embryonic alternative to what she professes to loathe. This type of loose reasoning and content-free writing, my friends, is representative of California flakiness, writ large.

In summary: Educator, teach thyself.

The Irrationalist

: This type of loose reasoning and
: content-free writing, my friends,
: is representative of California
: flakiness, writ large.

However, I bet if such a writer's reasoning and writing style were more appealing to a liberal mindset -- but were no less flakey, loose and content-free -- you'd give that person a lot more benefit of the doubt.

As for using the term "California flakiness," I hope you're sensitive enough to not also use a term that stereoptypes in the manner of "gayboy swishiness" or "Mexican backwardness."

Irrationalist -- Just as long as you're not generalizing about California flakiness from one example!