I'm cynical enough to believe all that, but I'll look for evidence.

Here's the thing. You don't need to "teach to the test" to have the kids ace the test. On the contrary, teaching to the test does NOT guarantee they will do well on the test. Just teach the material. If your students know how to find the area of a triangle and do other geometric proofs, they'll be able to do well on the test.

Yeah, there are tricks to taking the tests (plugging numbers, elimination, backsolving, etc) and you can teach them, but ultimately, if the kids don't know the material they won't do well. And if they do have a strong vocabulary and basic math skills, they will do well.

Also, in my home state of MA (which I no longer live in, but it is my frame of reference) they have the MCAs. Which are pretty much exactly like the SAT, at least the math and English sections. I think if the kids do well on the SAT they shouldn't have to take the MCAs, why the repitition? If they know the material they know it, don't need to take it twice.

But, and this made me unpopular with my left-wing colleagues which is ironic because I'm generally pretty lefty, I do think there needs to be a standard, across-the-board assessment of some basic facts.

Having said that, the industry is messed up. They keep cutting the full-time professor jobs in favor of adjuncts. I remember my "Welcome" meeting where I assumed they'd show me how to get a library card or whatever... nope... slideshows of the multi-million buildings they were building. Made me a little resentful as my pay was 14 hundred a month, and they refused to give anyone more than 2 classes because it meant paying them a halfway decent salary. So it was fine for someone like me, who was basically a housewife with a lucrative hobby, but someone trying to make a living would have to drive around to several different schools to do so. That who you want teaching your college students? Housewives who view it as a hobby? It's not that I wasn't a good teacher, but seriously, what are the parents and students paying top dollar for? Not the professors! Even the tenured ones make a good living, but aren't getting rich off your 30-60k a year, with the odd exception.

Sports teams are a HUGE money suck for all but the top-performing sports schools.

And little things, too. My alma mater used to have tea and cakes every Friday in the dorms. They can no longer afford it in all the dorms. Meanwhile they built a huge new center exactly like everyone else's. Tea in the dorms is much cheaper, and much more charming, than a giant student center. Having events that focus around houses creates a stronger sense of community. And there was nothing wrong with the old student center. And the town and other nearby towns afforded plenty of coffee shops and restaurants to hang out in if you didn't want to hang in your dorm.

I fantasize about starting a small college, no-frills... simple dorms with in-house dining, library, labs, and professors. A gym so the students can stay fit, and if the kids want to organize some sports they can do so, but they can raise their own money, and skipping class (especially tests) for a meet would not be acceptable.

In my industry (privatized Corrections) we've learned a few things about human resources from colleges and universities. One of them is the crucial importance of "part-timing" corrections officers' work, saving my company a fortune.

Unless of course, you can get into IATSE and/or the DGA and make money in the movies. Below-the-line workers make better than decent money, even with runaway production.

I've heard many teachers complain about testing, and all their arguments made me lose any respect I had for teachers.

General argument 1. It forces us to teach to the test. Basically saying the teachers will cheat, really they are that untrustworthy, that when teachers are tested they will cheat and find work around.
2. That teaching to the test will take so much time. Sure there are things you can do, but unless you are giving them practice test after practice test, teaching kids how to tweek their scores takes a day tops.

3. Why we need standardized testing? Because as an example in DC when it was the lowest performing schools in the nation, teachers rated themselves as exemplary. According to teachers there are no bad teachers and never have been any ever.
A note with DC, I could easily give a dozen possible reasons why DC schools should be the best school district:
Kids here are basically walking distance to the largest museum in the country and it's free. It has free educational programs on everything, 6 days a week, all year round.
There are monuments to most US historic events open to the public with free tours, which tell you lots about that subject, be it the Korean War memorial or the Jefferson Memorial.
Want to learn about a different country, visit their embassy, they give tours, talks lectures, cultural exchanges, touristy education programs, usually free.
Zoos, Largest library in the US, weekly free concerts, can watch congress "work" in person.
These are all freely and easily available to DC kids huge advantages that most school districts don't have real access to, would kill to have that access to.
They also are in the top 10 in school districts in the amount of $ per student they are given.
Some of the highest teacher salaries ever.
But the students rank on the bottom or next to the bottom on all ranking systems.

"The story of Cooper Union is a typical anecdote of the age of collegiate [CRONY] capitalism, and it's easy to come up with other examples of the lavish, unnecessary spending that characterizes American academia nowadays, that makes it "the best in the world.""

There, fixed it, and provided additional alliteration....

Josh, I'm going to respectfully disagree w/your rant about teachers. I felt similar to you until about 6 years ago when my best friend started teaching 3rd grade.
In our state, 3rd grade is the first year they have NCLB test. And that was almost all the district cared about. Was the scores on that test. Lesson plans were designed on a schedule, down to the day, of what to teach for the test. Didn't matter if your students needed more time or less, you had to go by the schedule. And in the months directly before, she was forced to give practice tests once a week. And God help you if the scores fluctuated from week to week because maybe a kid´s parents got in a fight or he was sick a few days. And in the weeks before the test, she had to read off of a script for her lessons. They would have people from.the district pop in to check and see if, no kidding, the day's schedule was written properly on the board. Now, it didn't matter that she knew.her students best. Didn't matter that she knew they needed more time with fractions - that wasn't on the schedule, so she wasn't allowed to do it. When people say "teach to the test", I think this the vs they are referring to.
As for teacher evals, I think the state tests are buckshot for that. My friend got the ESE class last year. That meant that apx a third of her class was had learning disabilities of some kind. she had at least three kids in there who were barely a first grade level (including one who had difficulty spelling her own name). There's no way she was going to be able to get them all at the proper percentage in one year. Tests are fine barometers, but I think benchmark testing is a better fit than the standardized tests that are so en vogue. Amount of progress made is a better (and more consistent) approach. She brought almost all those ESE kids up to a 3rd grade proficiency, even if it was only middle third grade. (The one who couldn't spell her name did not increase at all. Btw, my friend was not allowed to have the girl held back, either. The principal said she needed to be pushed through)

And I'm amazed to read about how many of these test designers are former politicians & lobbyists, and not people with any kind of background in education.

The test prep folks don't have any of our money. I've told my kids that to prepare for the tests, they should read their school books and do every bit of their homework. My middle daughter starts her senior year in high school on Tuesday. Her test scores are pretty good so far.

Then you can always depend on colleges to have an intelligent and open view on everything.

LA College Faculty Bans Even Mentioning Guns — Except for Plays