If high SAT scores are your goal, it’s best to stick to the rules

In today’s New York Times Magazine, Ann Hulbert writes about the unfortunate way in which the new SAT writing section is being administered. Essentially, students are given worthlessly general, impossible to answer questions and then told to decisively pick a side, writing what they feel is correct.

The goal, I suppose, is to teach students the basic, formulized structure for good critical essays: introduction, thesis, topic sentences leading into body paragraphs and a restatement of the main ideas in a conclusion. But the problem is that the prompts are simply bits of abstract conventional wisdom, like “Is it more important to follow the rules exactly or to base your actions on how other people may be affected.” Where a real critical essay would dissect the problems inherent in both sides, trying to show which instances might be better suited to which solution, these students are asked to reflexively choose one side and stick to it. One of the unfortunate effects of this testing style is that it herds students into declaring their initial reactions as unquestionably true. Furthermore, it offers no way to test one of the prominent features of a good writer – the ability to make a reasoned judgment that is not only coherently organized, but also appears to be better than the alternative.

As is increasingly the case in American schools, students will simply be taught the test. Thus, they’ll end up writing short, formulized essays in which the last sentence of the first paragraph restates the question in declarative form – “It is more important to follow the rules exactly” – followed by a few short body paragraphs that give asinine reasons for why this argument is always true. But intellectual stubbornness is perhaps a virtue we need to teach less of, as it trains students to instinctively take their first, unconsidered notions as unassailable gospel, and suggests that a good writer only admits to one side of an argument bearing any merit.

Part of what critical writing teaches is the ability to make nuanced distinctions in the correctness of an argument. But this test encourages students to run off half-cocked with their first impulse, blasting away at counterarguments without giving them any thought. SAT-takers are being taught to stick to what they feel. The Kaplan test-prep guide says “What’s important is that you take a position and state how you feel. It is not important what other people might think, just what you think.” But strong feelings do not a good argument make, nor does unwaveringly ignoring outside opinions when formulating your own. This sort of insulated rigidity of thought is more akin to Communist Russia the intellectual meticulousness we ought to be encouraging in students.

The SAT’s writing section is a good idea. More emphasis should be placed on efficient, precise communication in today’s schooling, and if nothing else, this new section should promote writing that is clearer and more organized. And no matter how flawed the exercise, anything that asks students write more often will be better. But equating good writing with the sort of brash verbal bullying this test promotes is a shame. That’s how I feel and I’m sticking to it.