The College Board....is an organization that gears tests to some way....assessing if you really learned much in high school, and gives you a ranking. This all paves the way for you to attend a fine, lesser-than-fine, or a far-step-from-fine college/university.
There's some debate that has erupted over the last month over the question of history, and the new upgraded test structure. The comments over this developed new structure? Somewhat negative, with accusations that the people who developed the new strategy are looking negative upon history.
The obvious changes? Multiple choice questions are gone. Shocking? To some degree.
The new way of testing? A number of charts and historical documents are laid out for you to read through, then you have to assess the questions asked, analyze the documents and data, and note your answer.
The essay portion? Well....it went from two significant essay tasks to be written....to four lesser significant essays. Your writing skills are challenged to a degree...meaning you had gained some talents via English, grammar and literature classes. Failing the essay because of lousy writing skills? Yes.....it's entirely possible you want get picked up by a big-name college because you had a vast knowledge of history, but you just couldn't write to the degree they desired. At that point, you are destined to some community college.
The questions being posed to the College Board? It's more than just a dozen aspects.
I kinda noted at some point.....the people opposing these changes to the history test asked one simple question....who wrote the new history structure for the test of the College Board.
It's a simple question. You'd expect the College Board to simply note three or six or nine prominent national history professors having done the project, and they'd vouch for the fine work they'd done.
Well...the College Board has sat and denied the names of the writers of the history testing project.
This has led various people looking at the reaction by the College Board as odd. Normally, you'd be proud of changes, and people would associate their names with such a project. In this case....no names.
There is another suggestion to this....that no actual college professor wrote any of the test changes, and it was simply assigned to some college grad students who were working under one professor with a slanted view of history.
What's all of this mean? The entry port to studying history at any significant college in America....is this stupid College Board test. If it says you have to do A, B and C in a stupid fashion.....to pass a test, then you will study that way and mentally prepare yourself in that fashion. Wrongful interpretation of history......to get you into big-name college history program? Yeah....as silly as it sounds.
Did we always require this College Board test to get to some university program? No. Once we commercialized colleges (1900s), you had to have some method of limiting enrollment to the bigger name colleges. The College Board started out about a hundred years ago....acting as an agent....with tests that would separate the winners and losers. Everyone accepted their independent status and middle-of-the-road authority on tests. We are closing in on a dilemma where people now question the Board and how they reach a change in their tests.