Talk:College Board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uhh, isn't the board's HQ in Princeton? I received my SAT score report back from Princeton, NJ.

Just read a CNN article that said CB wants to split the New SAT into separate settings. should this be included? 24.26.120.39

I doubt it just yet. If nothing happens then it would just be a random bit of information.--naryathegreat | (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Added information *re* the ambivalent symbiosis of the test prep industry and ETS

Spinoza1111 08:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)I added information concerning the rather frank statements in The Princeton Review as to why the SAT totally sucks and blows...in its own quiet way, the Princeton Review is an egalitarian critique of the way the SAT simultaneously encourages, and then through trick questions, undercuts those sorts of attitudes Adorno describes as The Authoritarian Personality. Of course, I'd ask why the authors of TPR make their incomes from such a corrupt institution, but not in an Encyclopedia article.

I would go on to ask whether the passive aggression of criticising the SAT in TPR isn't an instance of a Negative Dialectic, in which the French Revolution opened up the idea of "the career open to talents", only to find that The People don't want and wouldn't recognise transparency if it bit them on the arse, instead they want to find an insider trade that would make them, and not t'other chap, the new Mandarins, able to access the Posh places while running the show on behalf of the homes back in the neighborhood who done flunked the SAT, DESPITE swotting the Princeton Review.

But such views would be a proper part of An Encyclopedia of Opinions.

"I could prophesy aaaarghngh" "But thou art dust, Harry, and food for worms" - Henry IV Part One Act Five


Spinoza1111 06:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges gots de following message:

"Wikipedia is not, never has been, and never will be an encyclopedia of opinions. It is an encyclopedia of "no-opinions" or neutral point of view. Your edits were heavily biased, and were inappropriate. If you wish to add such material, do it on the SAT page.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)"

Spinoza1111 06:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)My reply:

Hey, Champ (do you mind if I call you Champ?), learn to read. In the discussion I CLEARLY differentiated between opinion and fact, placing the opinion in the discussion, and the interesting and relevant FACT that the authors of the Princeton Review are angry at the SAT.

Furthermore, I am on record as saying that the state of having no opinion whatsoever doesn't frigging exist, and it is a pernicious notion. Indeed, it makes you into Joe Bloggs of the Princeton Review, the guy who flunks because what he thinks is the Nirvana of NPOV is a collection of received opinions and is for this reason attracted to the wrong answer, as were the American people concerning Saddam Husain.

My edits weren't heavily biased, Champ. They were NOT BORING which is different.

Having said this, however, I will make the update you recommend to the SAT page and NOT the College Board page. You happen to be right that the information is more appropriate to the SAT page. It is specific to the SAT.

I will take due care to make sure that my information is truly NPOV. As I always do. I kin read.

I made NO recommendation that Wikipedia become some sort of mythical French Encyclopedia of Perverse Opinions. I clearly meant that as a droll aside.

You would do well, Champ (I do hope if you don't mind that I call you Champ), to ponder Adorno on the fact that in the 20th century, the meanings of subjectivity and objectivity reversed, and the "subjective" came to mean the encounter with the facts by a single mind while "objectivity" means today a collection of conventional opinions and being led, like Joe Bloggs, over the precipice.

Let me like Nixon be "perfectly clear". It isn't my opinion but fact that people who make their living in test prep think the test blows. It IS an exciting and disturbing fact, but it is confirmed by reading the text.

To call the report of this fact "biased" is to defeat the major purpose of Wikipedia, which is to provide useful information from a variety of sources.+

Some High School kid will want to know that the authors of the Princeton Review believe this because he may feel alienated from the very notion of "testing"...for the very good reason that "testing" was the not so bright idea of James B. Conant to separate the American dumb kids from the elite at an early age, and to track the dumbasses into service jobs.

With the result that today our foreign policy has been highjacked by a complete moron who managed through family wealth to get formally classed with the elite and 2000+ American lives have been thrown away.

I think the high school kid has the right to know that the Princeton Review (in which I do not have a financial interest and for whom I do not work) MIGHT be a useful resource in helping him to overcome a classridden and class biased test.

You don't overcome bias, whether class, race or intellectual, by adopting the Lotus position and pretending you are unbiased (for one thing, racial studies shows this to be the white folly). Instead in the service of NPOV and simple fairness you follow Parliamentary rules but use your OWN "bias", your own "subjectivity" as an energy to redress the initial crime!

Therefore I think it's fair to add a "biased" in the sense of rather disturbing fact to the product of the collective effort because with your bias, you feel that the fact has a place. You perform Affirmative Action for that fact in purity of heart because you know that other members of the collective will act from their prejudices, including their unstated prejudices in favor of the conventional opinion.

Take heart, Champ. Your reasoning and reading was perverse but your edit stands.

[edit] no longer non-profit

I personally find it sifficult to believe that the College Board is a non profit or not for profit organization, the prices to take their exams are ridiculous, $70.00 to sit and fill in bubbles for three hours as John Stossels would say, Give me a Break.68.76.103.220 01:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the College Board is now a for-profit corporation, as changed a few years ago. Am I wrong? Phoenix-forgotten 00:11, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Yes. The college bpard is still non-profit. See their website.--User:naryathegreat | (talk) 02:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

...which is at collegeboard.com, with the .com suffix implying commerciality, so it's understandable that people believe them to be a commercial entity as that is how they present themselves on the Internet. *Dan T.* 13:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Considering how much they charge for archived score retrieval, I doubt they are non-profit. It's a scam. Haizum 05:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
And they sell books, too. I doubt it costs $50+ to print those tests. They are obviosly creating a revenue of sorts. However, they do give out scholarships (or at least claim to). Lord GS-41 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

CB is indeed a non-profit. collegeboard.org will resolve to the website as well and all cb employees have .org email addresses. Mrw1975 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not-for-profit does not mean that you do not generate revenue. (unsigned)
Yeah, but your revenue goes untaxed. The idea is that you put the revenue back into the organisation, and do constructive benefit to the society. John Riemann Soong 14:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Not all not-for-profit revenue is untaxed (in the U.S.) If a not-for-profit does not qualify for 501(c)(3) or similar charitable tax status, surpluses will be taxed much as any other corporation. .org domains are open to any organisation, regardless of legal status, purpose or (lack of) tax exemptions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AP scores

"Some colleges will accept a 2 or above on an AP test as college credit, others a 3 or 4."

I have never heard of a college accepting a 2, which means "possibly qualified." Should that be changed? -jhoff

I changed it.--naryathegreat | (talk) 20:31, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should all the AP courses be listed?

I don't see any particular reason to include the entire AP Program course listing within the College Board article. The exact same list (albeit wikified) is included in the AP Program article. Repeating the list here doesn't seem incredibly relevant to this article's subject, and if nothing else just adds unecessary length to the article. Fivre 04:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

  • I think a section should be added about critisim: both the effectiveness of its test and its its practices which try to suck every last dolar out of the students instead of helping people, especially underpriveleged students, go to college. P-unit 07:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a repository of opinions as stated above. It is also not a forum for argument about the relative merits of an organization.Feinstein 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Feinstein, nice try. The College Board is such a scam it's not even funny. Everyone knows it. $10 per call, $25+ to retrieve archived scores, $25 to rush scores (as opposed to an absurd 5 week wait), more fees, and more fees. Haizum 05:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You seem to think that you deserve these services for free, however they cost money to provide. Too bad for you. Feinstein 05:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It costs $18 to send scores to a college and it takes about 5 weeks. It also costs about $18 to send a 25lb package from Philadelphia to Chicago, which takes about 4 days. This is not a scam how?Aufs klo 03:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] not-for-profit instead of non-profit

The College Board is a not-for-profit membership association

According to Collegeboard's research, coaching doesn't help, and they back it up with stats. I'd recommend mentioning that.