c Battalion
O
PINION
Page 5 • Tuesday, July 20, 1999
at expectations
ring exam exclusively on computer represents needed reform of standardized testing
an attempt to wed
sting with technol-
gy, the Educational
png Service (ETS)
implemented plans
[ffer the Graduate
trd Examination
E) exclusively on
puters. The move
be undoubtedly
fi|[ with complaints
Caleb
MCDANIEL
time, but in the end, this shift to stan-
ized tests on screens will prove to be
he best.
Records tf or a ^ ew Y ears > ETS has been strad-
Hg the fence between the obsolescent
. iaper-and-pencil test and a new computer-
. '' iast\i format, and test-takers have been
0Illca ’.‘ li; H to choose whether to bubble or click.
, ™®ut from now on, while some subject
i album, ren GRE tests will still be offered on pa-
themselvt ier, anyone wishing to take the GRE will
tic utopia gKloistered into a cubicle and forced to
nd souls® ihe exam with a keyboard and a
•ntury So; oouse.
joratedsoM'he change has roused no small contro-
igepodge®y among test analysts and exam takers,
h dog r;i®enters to the decision are driven by the
••^ onev videspread perception that the differences
) "Find'W veen l * ie P a P er -b asec l and computer-
iral BluesM 0 ^ formats make the latter more diffi-
l f w Mj®)n e of the major differences between
10n he two is the adaptive capability of the
send computer test p 0 i n t 0 f contention
hard cor: Bye wa y j n which the computer modifies
ks out tlifl
d Dick la ■
/ith trade:
" Machete i
n somecL
egs Dole must win
ong (199; g
i reK on own merits
the test according to the taker’s ability. If
a tester is consistently choosing correct
answers, the questions will usually in
crease in difficulty as the test goes on. On
the other hand, if the tester is doing poor
ly on the first sets of questions — which
begin on an average level of difficulty —
the test will become gradually easier.
But this allegedly inequitable feature of
the computer-based test is really an inno
vative way to make sure scores accurately
represent the taker’s ability. It is similar to
the College Board’s decision to re-center
SAT scores several years ago. Both design
changes are meant to ensure that the test
is neither too easy nor too hard.
By adjusting its level of difficulty to the
performance of the taker, it provides a
median standard of good performance so
that graduate schools can better judge the
merits of applicants.
Extensive ETS research has confirmed
that the computer’s intelligent tweaking
of the test does not unfairly skew scores
because scores are weighted in compari
son to the difficulty of questions.
The belief that the computer will be
harder on takers is a myth. Instead, it will
provide a more accurate reflection of abili
ty.
Once the myth of a difference in diffi
culty is dispelled, it becomes clear that the
computer-based test should be preferred
over the paper test.
First of all, the computer-based version
is an administrative improvement. It al-
Gabriel Ruenes/The Battalion
lows students to view or cancel their
scores immediately after completing the
test, eliminating trails of paper correspon
dence and weeks of anxious waiting for re
sults. The computer test is cheaper to ad
minister, and for what it is worth, it saves
the lives of many trees.
Secondly, the computerized test is
friendly, not hostile, to the taker. For in
stance, it offers a tutorial before the timed
test begins, so that takers can become
comfortable with the layout of the test and
answer practice questions for as long as
they wish before starting. The test inter
face is easily accessible and benefits from
the absence of those pesky little seals on
test booklets. You can save a broken pencil
there.
Finally, the timetable for computer tests
is more humane. At most testing locations.
takers can make appointments to give the
GRE a shot at their leisure, and the test can
be taken up to once per calendar month.
Therefore, rather than resting the fate of
graduate students on their performance on
one or two days, the computer-based for
mat gives takers optimal opportunities to
achieve a good score.
As always progress is a double-edged
sword. The computer is not without flaws
and could stand some improvements. One
unfortunate side-effect of the adaptive de
sign is the inability of takers to go back to
questions they have already answered.
Because the computer has incorporated
each response to determine the next ques
tion, the test design does not allow takers
to review their work.
But such defects are the price that must
be paid for innovation. While the ETS will
probably receive many gripes (which is
certainly not new), their decision is com
mendable.
Back in the day, there were probably
those who protested the replacement of
slate and chalk with pencil and paper, and
there will be those who will loudly decry
the dominance of computers in education.
These naysayers should not halt needed
changes.
For, to put it like the authors of the ver
bal section of the GRE would, their disap
probation is antediluvian.
Caleb McDaniel is a junior
history major.
MAIL CALL
P oetn (nlesponse to Beverly Mire-
)’ ,orl !es’July 19 column.
lean Feffj
Sky Is Bn. Lijreles wants to be on
sides of the fence
her into^en jt comes to the gen-
der issue on this point.
tiard-stouB$he attacks a system
smeostasisylich a || OWS women to
ic cjii p succeed only when “there
ota man available” but
he same time says that
Heather'
tider is “the only calling
|d of her candidacy.”
She cannot have it both
s. If she truly believes
gender should not be an is
sue, then she is forced to
accept that Dole must win
the nomination in her own
right, not simply because
she is a female.
If Dole is the best candi
date, then I agree she
should win. However, I have
yet to see anything which
leads me to believe that
she is worthy of this title.
I will admit that Bush
has several disturbing
facets to his campaign, but
overall, I do not feel that
Dole is “the most qualified
for the nomination.” If you
want to support Dole, sup
port Dole. But do not whine
that Bush is stealing the
spotlight.
Campus living needs improvements
Jeff Wischkaemper
Class of '02
The Battalion encourages letters
to the editor. Letters must be 300
words or less and include the au
thor's name, class and phone num
ber. The opinion editor reserves the
right to edit letters for length, style,
and accuracy. Letters may be sub
mitted in person at 013 Reed Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Let
ters may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com
Jeff
BECKER
;y Grit 1 ,
Band
ng Bans
irtesy
ks
slitty Cri 1
fang is 01
!iat is suf>
i fun-lo’
nusic al
imyAv
albums
ill sic is)';
»ht to
s this Cija
- membf
r desire)
was
s tellsie'|^pihe pro-
lailygfc I life
being a I JL move
ment has
s with reached a
fs typ! stalemate,
ts laid'l ! |; A once
the passionate
iotable ; crusade has
; abotil dwindled
down to a few
D espite the ben
efits of living
on-campus,
many things about
residential life need
improvement. Be
sides the obvious
parking problems
that residents face,
there are many other
things that A&M can
and should do to increase the benefits of
campus life, particularly in the summer.
There are not enough good places to
eat on campus. And on top of that, they
closed Sbisa. It seems a little strange that
summer residents live on Northside, but
the closest available dining hall is on
Southside at the Commons. This does
not make much sense. Outbound dining
is available on Northside, but that is real
ly just a buzzword for second-rate cafete
ria food. That raises two more questions:
Is there a such thing as first-rate cafeteria
food, and if so, how much worse can
second-rate get?
Even worse, the Underground Food
Court closes at 3:30 p.m. on weekdays,
just in time for those hungry people get
ting out of class to see the doors slam
shut. Fortunately, summer residents on
Northside have a source of salvation in
Freebirds, but most other convenient
meal choices come in the form of deliv
ery and require the dreaded tip.
A&M should at least open the nearest
dining hall for reasonable hours in the
summer so students can have food that is
not microwaved TV dinners.
The biggest complaint of campus resi
dents is that A&M kicks people out three
times a year. Two of the times residents
are forced to move out entirely, at the
end of the spring and summer semesters.
The other time, at the end of the fall se
mester, students do not have to move
out, but are locked out for a month with
no access to their belongings.
A&M has an excuse for doing this,
with much of the maintenance being
done in the interim period between se
mesters.
But they must find a better way to
treat people than that in order to de
crease the limitations of residence life.
Admittedly, A&M does offer interim
housing for summer residents between
the semesters for a cost. This still re
quires moving out of the spring resi
dence, into the interim housing, out of
the interim housing, into the summer
residence, out of summer residence, into
interim housing, out of interim housing
and into fall residence.
“A&M should consider
more ways to make
campus a better place
to live”
Sound like fun? ’Iky actually doing it.
All the moving is a huge inconve
nience and is a contributing factor in
why students move off campus to apart
ments and houses, which do not force
people to move out unless they do not
pay the rent.
A&M opens fewer residence halls in
the summer than the spring and fall due
to a lower population.
But the people who do have to move
should be allowed to stay in their spring
residence until moving time or be al
lowed to move into the summer dorm
early.
People who live on campus for the
most part have to take everything home
and then bring it back in two weeks.
which is a problem for those who live
further than an hour away.
In order to attract more summer resi
dents, A&M should consider more ways
to make campus a better place to live.
The Residence halls are among the best
in the country, but people are still going
to choose to live off campus if residents
have limited food options during summei
"sessions and are exiled three times a
year.
Students who live on campus do have
benefits. Many residents relish the com
munity atmosphere of dorm life. There is
the convenience of not having to battle
traffic everyday to get to class and being
within a 10-minute walk of most classes.
And one cannot forget the wonders of 5-
digit dialing.
In addition, A&M residence halls have
made an attempt to make summer resi
dence more attractive by offering free
laundry this summer. The service is a
good idea and should be continued in fu
ture summers, but A&M should advertise
it for the service to become a factor in
student’s residence decisions.
However, laundry concerns are not a
cause of distress to most students, and
most choose to live off campus because
of more pressing issues. Many choose to
live elsewhere because of the freedom
and mobility that tenants of other places
have. These are things that cannot be ef
fectively fixed by A&M.
But there are things that A&M can and
should do to decrease the limitations of
living on campus, including opening a
nearby dining hall, keeping places to eat
open for reasonable hours and finding a
solution to the problem of kicking stu
dents out of their residence halls at inop
portune times.
Jeff Becker is a sophomore
computer engineering major.
ourt rulings on abortion reveal need for stealthy pro-life tactics
Tom
OWENS
this C core activists who still faithfully
5 mello) picket the dens of death.
ingand 1 Their situation worsened late
is. jfist week as a federal judge or-
i’s real dered national anti-abortion lead-
entatiot ers to pay more than $257,000 in
dolin? damages and to stop interfering
3 the with the operation of abortion
clinics across the country.
-nembfll In an obvious misapplication
n playifj of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act
^eyjeal (RICO), originally intended to
f 0 ra®rget the Mafia, the federal
;(; ,I courts threatened financial ruin
6 to those who attempt to counsel
women seeking abortions.
Srionlm " r ^ lose w ^° a dvocate an incre-
ihental approach toward oppos
ing abortion have seen setbacks
also. Earlier this month, similar
laws passed by Louisiana and
Virginia limiting late-term abor
tions were struck down by feder
al judges.
In many ways, the cause
seems almost hopeless at this
juncture. With a Democratic
president and a liberal judiciary,
the chances of a legal ban on
abortion are slim.
Thus, it is time for conserva
tives to pursue solutions that are
outside of what are normally
viewed as system constraints.
In every attempt to challenge
the abortion industry, there is a
common adversary which
thwarts the efforts of righteous
state governments :— the judicial
branch of the federal govern
ment.
Pro-lifers should work toward
political ends that focus on ex
ploiting the weaknesses of the ju
diciary. The enemy has been
identified. Now conservatives
must plan an offensive to circum
vent their authority.
Perhaps the most important
weakness of any court is its in
ability to enforce its decisions.
Simply put, without the coopera
tion of a power-wielding execu
tive such as a governor or presi
dent, the rulings of a court can
be rendered moot by lack of en
forcement.
The greatest hope for the pro
life movement would be the elec
tion of a president who would
refuse to enforce the rulings of
the Supreme Court regarding
abortion.
As long as one-third of the
Senate supports the president’s
actions (to avoid impeachment),
the Supreme Court remains de
pendent on the willingness of the
president to enforce its decisions.
In such a scenario, a conserva
tive state like Texas could pass an
anti-abortion bill and strictly en
force it despite any federal
court’s injunction. The pro-life
voters of the Republican Party
should require of their candidate
a “no Roe vs. Wade enforcement”
pledge before casting their votes
in his or her favor.
Even in the current situation
with a pro-choice president, the
system shows some flaws that
could be taken advantage of by a
stealthy state legislature and gov
ernor.
In the recent Virginia case, the
bill was signed into law on July 1
and was struck down by a federal
court on July 17. The exploitable
situation here lies in the inertia of
the system — the “dead time”
between the passing of the law
and the time required for it to be
challenged and struck down in
federal court.
For 16 days, the law was tech
nically enforceable.
Had the Virginia governor
been adequately prepared, a
properly mobilized police force
could have done great damage to
abortion providers within that 16
days.
If a state government were
properly aligned toward this end,
it could continuously pass and
sign into law new abortion-ban
ning bills at a rate faster than the
federal courts could render them
unenforceable.
Though the “right” to abortion
would be unaffected, abortion
providers could be virtually erad
icated in such a state.
Since abortion is fundamental
ly a business, all an ambitious
governor would have to do is ha
rass the providers to such an ex
tent that their enterprise becomes
unprofitable. One effective way
to accomplish this is to subject
abortion providers to the same
property-seizure laws that are
commonly employed against
drug dealers.
If a bill is passed on Friday
and struck down on Monday
morning, it matters little to the
abortion provider whose assets
were seized and auctioned on
Saturday.
That provider is probably ru
ined financially because the legal
hassles involved in reclaiming
seized property are enormous.
These measures would also
discourage young medical stu
dents considering a career as an
abortion provider. The growth
rate of abortion doctors is nega
tive already, and the threat of
bankruptcy would only aid the
process.
In Romans 13, the apostle Paul
states that governments “are not
a terror to good works but to
evil.”
The federal government has
shown itself to be the opposite of
Paul’s description.
Because of this, it has no
moral authority to demand alle
giance to its rulings on abortion.
The Supreme Court’s 1972 de
cision has condoned the murder
of more human beings than the
historical efforts of Stalin and
Hitler combined. Three thousand
children are slaughtered every
day in our nation.
Pro-lifers need to stop being
the docile lap-dogs of a morally
apathetic Republican Party.
The movement should elect
bold leadership to state political
offices that will stand ground
against federal tyranny. Twenty-
seven years of prayerful patience
are enough.
It’s time to play hardball.
Tom Owens is a senio
chemical engineering major