emerald
platform
Tests need revising
Colleges and universities need to revise their testing
procedures for the benefit of minority students, a Ford
Foundation commission announced in January. The com
mission's findings, reported in The Chronicle of Higher
Education (Feburary 3). are more than a little applicable at
the University.
The Commission on the Higher Education of Minorities
called for institutions to adopt a "value added" system, in
which students would be admitted and evaluated “on the
basis of their potential for learning and growth rather than
their relative standing on tests and grades "
The three year study found testing and grading methods
in higher education not only fail to contribute to the learning
process, but also pose special obstacles to the development
of minority students ”
More just presenting special obstacles to minority
students' educational development, some forms of testing at
the University contain elements that are discriminatory
These tests, and specifically a test called The Cooperative
English Test, are incomprehensible to many minority
students
The Cooperative English Test was selected by the
University’s School of Journalism in 1977 as a screening
devise for prospective journalism students. Passing this test,
and a tortuous typing test on ancient manual typewriters,
allows us journalism students to waive Journalism 250 The
most compelling reason behind use of the test was its
emphasis on the basic aspects of English The test stresses
grammar, punctuation, capitalization, vocabulary, and
spelling. This, in the minds of the journalism school,
outweighed the fact The Cooperative English Test was first
published in 1951 It has not been extensively revised since.
Not just a few of the words in the vocabulary section weren't
common com even then.
Examples of the questions become comical, and not
even near the language indigenous to minority students A
group of three sentences requiring correct punctuation read:
‘‘Boys who are blessed with good looks and pleasant
manners often manage to get their own way” (sic), “Peter
had no small success in wheedling his elders" (sic) and "I
hope that I shant be battered and jarred to bits" (sic).
The first sentence is amusingly sexist, while the last two
are strangely phrased with the words "wheedling” and
‘ shant be battered ’ ’
Some of the words that require correct spelling are
mystifying: ‘ adjasent (sic), vaudeville, kimono. Chautauqua,
millinery ”
The terms needing proper definition are certainly un
fathomable:
“Jollification, gloaming, chorister, laundau gallivant,
shoat. euchre, cassava, and ormolu "
It’s doubtful a fair number of minority students with an
urban public school education could define more than two of
those words A shoat. we learn after having ransacked the
Oxford English Dictionary, is a young pig These words,
cunos even in 1951. are arcane thirty-one years later
The Cooperative English Test should be a source of
embarrassment to the journalism school It fails as a test of a
student's knowledge, but succeeds as a piece of antiquity
Why is this test in use? That it asks questions on
capitalization and simple grammar isn’t reason enough to
continue use in its present, copyright 1951. form.'
The Cooperative English Test is a blatant example of the
type of test that discriminates against minority students This
test points out the constant need at the University to examine
the effectiveness of all forms of testing and grading The
University’s CLEP program updates its tests every two years
This revision procedure is commendable if the test questions
are examined for their potential to be understood and
responded to by all students — minority and non-minority
The Ford Commission findings indicate that testing and
grading must be frequently revised to become more respon
sive to the particular requirements of minority students
While true of minority students it is also true of non-minority
students screened with archaic tests such as the journalism
school’s Cooperative English Test
"^UND
w/# W^£™',
jK&£*g*«e*
j^asssr
^aWs
SUWATftjfcy
UVtABif
av'
1992 - Wi^mc W T5€ SEAMAN 1WC
letters
Hard to believe
In response to David Thomas letter (Feb 5), I
say tough shit I find it hard to believe that after
four years here at the University, you've singled
out the University post office and gays as being
continued plagues" to us all Surely you can
come up with more important issues on which to
exercise your acute literary talent
First, concerning your beef with the post
office Where do you think people should take
their packages to mail them so as to stay out of
your way. the fishbowl7 If you re tired of seeing a
line every stinking time" you go to the post office
to buy a stamp, go somewhere else or better yet.
buy youcself a book of stamps and save us all
some trouble Also, what kind of strictly personal
business do you think occurs af the post office
that's any different than your own7
Second, in regards to your getting sick"
when you open up the Emerald and see some
thing about gay pride " I feel you have an
overactive gall bladder all punning aside You
suggest that groups like these are a cause of
increased fees How naive. David I think if you
were to look into the matter you would find that a
greater percentage of your dollars went to sub
sidizing athletics, another self-chosen minority
group here on campus Perhaps you believe they
are more deserving of your money because they
represent a less unrighteous cause I believe
neither
C'mon David, if you don't have anything more
important to bitch about, let someone who does
fill this space don’t waste our time Moreover if
you think OSU has a better handle on these
"problems by having a separate stamp only
line at their post office, and a no funding policy
for the gay (yech) groups then perhaps that's
precisely where you should be You won t be
missed here
Mark Yarish
architecture
More common focus
The University Assembly voted last week to
refuse to consider a motion of no confidence in
the State Board of Higher Education and the
outgoing Chancellor Lieuallen A great statement
both for free and open debate — and for a
willingness to address seriously the problems
which confront this University I am appalled
Since coming to this University a decade ago,
I believe there has been no more common focus
of faculty complaint than the chancellor s office
But one was always told that there was no point in
complaining publicly: the chancellor had been
here a long time and still had many years to go
Now he ts retiring A search is underway for a
successor There is an opportunity at hand to
state that we are sick and tired of a chancellor
with no understanding of the functions and needs
of universities, and wish instead one who can
serve as an effective advocate of higher educa
tion in the state of Oregon Yet the assembly
chose silence — the same silence it has chosen
during a decade of eroding support for Higher
Education in Oregon
Instead we have a Board which sees its
function as voting on the means to affect cuts
ordered by budget notes of the legislature and
proposed by the chancellor s office
And what is the result of this state of affairs7
Simple: public and legislative support for higher
education evaporates A decade ago higher
education represented about one-quarter of the
state budget The figure now is closer to 12
percent — a 50 percent decline Oregon is a poor
state, some will say — but does it even contribute
as much of its income as others do7 In state
appropriations to higher education per $1000 of
personal income, Oregon ranked seventeenth in
the nation in 1974-75 In 1981-82 we ranked 31st
— and the decline continues as more cuts are on
the way Our library drops from a high of 37th to
84th in the rankings of the Association of Re
search Libraries Our students' tuition rises to top
among public institutions in the Pac-10 But dare
we speak an ill word of the chancellor and State
Board entrusted witht he duty of providing quality
education for the citizens of Oregon7 No We
chose silence — a parliamentary device of a
non-debatable motion Even a poor dumb puppy
will at least whimper as it rolls on its back before
some insurmountable aggressor But not the
faculty and students of this university assembly —
there the vote is to accept the demise of a once
rather respectable university without even a
whimper Sad Sad
Joseph W. Esherick
history
staff
rm Ormgor Dm*y Emtrmid is pu6M*h*d
wy' '«*/ rrwjwf fzcvpt m/rnyg
6nalt ■'»»«• and racatfoo* toy tfw Orayon
My Emmrmtd PubttoMng Co
60-5511
/BwsMm* 6*6-3712
6*6-4343
1
D
0
Editor
Salty HoOgsinson
Managing EdMor
Gatxmt Boehmar
Matat Editor
Harry Ester*
Assistant Maws EdMor
John Healy
Bot Baker
GraptPcs EOttor
WiiCePurgt
EOitons/ Page Ettrtor
Con FarnaU
Sports EOMor
Slere Spat?
AkocM* Sport* EOttor
Jatf DiC*&ru>r
ErmrUMnmant Editor
Matt Mayor
Might Editor
Ann Portal
Atao.ieSa Editors
ASUO
Dane Ciaussen
Community
Marian Green
Deportments end Schools
Debt's Hewlett
Features
Caroline Pet rich
Higher Education
Ann Portal
Potties / Environment
Ron Hunt
Oaneral St* ft
Advertising Dtrectt.
Darlene Gore
Production Manager
Ann Paterson
Classifier) Advertising C ootr otter
SaUy Ottar jean Ownbey