This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I dont know that we are saying different things. by wpkirish

Per the article even at MIT test scores are the not the main factor but part of the process. My takeaway from the article is the tests are helpful for students who attended schools that traditionally dont send students to the elite schools. For those that regularly send kids the HS work might be as probative.

I also would be interested in a fuller explanation of what they mean disadvantaged kids who have enormous potential even if their test scores arent that high. To me that seems to say there is a recognition that teaching the test makes a difference. I know that is something lots of folks dispute.

I also wonder what role the ncreased extra time allowances are playing in the overall scheme.