Author: Andrew Sullivan

Yesterday the College Board introduced an overhaul of the SAT, with a return to the 1,600-point scoring system, a revamped and now-optional- essay section, and a new emphasis on American “founding documents” as source material. Todd Balf offers a “simplistic example” of a new SAT prompt:

Students would read an excerpt from a 1974 speech by Representative Barbara Jordan of Texas, in which she said the impeachment of Nixon would divide people into two parties. Students would then answer a question like: “What does Jordan mean by the word ‘party’?” and would select from several possible choices. This sort of vocabulary question would replace the more esoteric version on the current SAT. The idea is that the test will emphasize words students should be encountering, like “synthesis,” which can have several meanings depending on their context. Instead of encouraging students to memorize flashcards, the test should promote the idea that they must read widely throughout their high-school years.

Elizabeth Kolbert, who last week panned the current version of the exam, thinks the timing is interesting:

The Board’s announcement was months – perhaps years – in the making. Suggestively, though, it came just two weeks after the release of a new study that questioned the SAT’s utility. Commissioned by the National Association for College Admissions Counseling, the study analyzed the college experiences of students at so-called test-optional schools. It found only “trivial” differences in grades and graduation rates between the students who had presented SAT scores and those who had not.

Jia Lynn Yang suggests that competition from the ACT is behind the redesign:

According to these numbers, the ACT passed the SAT in 2012. But by some measures, the lead may have changed earlier in 2010. That year, when it became clear that the ACT was gaining on the iconic SAT, FairTest says the College Board revised its number upward to include more exam administrations. “This is Coke versus Pepsi trying to hold onto, or in this case try to regain, market share,” said Bob Schaeffer, director of public education at FairTest. Schaeffer says the new SAT in 2005 was like “the New Coke of tests; a total failure in the marketplace. “

Meanwhile, it appears college administrators are cautiously optimistic about the redesign:

Michael Sexton, vice president for enrollment management at Santa Clara University, said that his institution has never looked at scores on the existing essay on the SAT, “so we won’t miss it.” He said that, generally, the changes announced Wednesday made sense. And he said he values the SAT as helping admissions officers make decisions, especially in science fields.

A number of other admissions leaders agreed, although frequently with caveats about one or more changes. Seth Allen, vice president and dean of admissions and financial aid at Pomona College, said via email that “there appears to be more of an emphasis on measuring critical thinking skills in this new version of the test. There also appears to be more emphasis on connecting the material to actual learning rather than memorization and test preparation. Both are steps in the right direction.” But Allen said he was “less keen on the idea of including American-centric passages in every exam. This creates a potential issue for non-US applicants.”

Readers recently debated the merits of the SAT here.

Abby Rapoport thinks political reporters are inventing a GOP establishment-Tea Party divide after Texas’s Tuesday primaries, in which Senator John Cornyn and other establishment figures fought off challenges from the right:

Texas is complicated because there’s no binary opposition between “establishment” candidates and those affiliated with the Tea Party. Should we define “establishment” as Speaker of the House Joe Straus, who has himself a relatively moderate record but has presided over one of the state’s most conservative legislatures? Outside Tea Party groups have tried to topple Straus, yet he also commands support from Tea Party-backed state representatives. Or is the “establishment” closer to Governor Rick Perry, the state’s longest-serving governor, who gave one of the first major speeches at a Tea Party rally in 2009? Or is it David Dewhurst, who hung tight to Perry’s message, passed extreme measures, but then watched his political dreams crumble as Cruz rose to power by accusing Dewhurst of being a moderate?

Benen agrees that the primaries are a contest between the far right and the farther right:

If the top-line takeaway is that the GOP Establishment won and the Tea Party faltered, some might get the impression that more moderate conservatives prevailed over voices of extremism. That impression would be mistaken. Federal lawmakers like Cornyn and [Rep. Pete] Sessions became some of the most conservative members of Congress in recent years as Republican politics in Texas became more radicalized.

Cillizza points out that the Tea Party didn’t much care for Cornyn’s challenger:

Yes, [Steve] Stockman ran as the conservative alternative to Cornyn who he attacked as part of the problem due, at least in part, to the fact that the incumbent is the second ranking Republican in the Senate. And, yes, some of Stockman’s views on the problems with the Republican party in Washington align with the tea party. But, the idea that Stockman was a tea party darling is simply not true. In fact, it’s hard to find a single major tea party group that endorsed Stockman’s campaign. Several leaders of the tea party even denounced it.

John Fund looks at the down-ballot races in which Tea Partiers fared much better. Sean Sullivan provides highlights from the other primaries, which included a familiar name:

George P. Bush easily won the GOP primary for land commissioner, a powerful post in Texas. He has the inside track in the November general election given the state’s conservative tilt. Bush is the nephew of former president George W. Bush and the son of former Florida governor Jeb Bush. While the former president has largely avoided the spotlight since leaving office, the Bush name is bound to get more attention in the coming months with George P. Bush’s campaign and speculation over whether Jeb Bush will run for president ramps up as 2016 draws near.

Readers continue the thread with many wonderful emails:

I also relate to the brother-in-law who wanted to support his wife but did not stand in church because he doesn’t believe in God. I also attend church with my family during holidays, or Mass when I’m visiting my boyfriend’s family. But I don’t take communion or say anything that indicates I am a believer. Why? It’s not to be contrary; it’s out of respect. These are very real beliefs for these people, and participating to the point of lying is disrespectful to their traditions and faith (not to mention confusing for my family, who have been told and must continue to be told that I do not share their beliefs). Isn’t Revelations 3:15-16 applicable here? “‘I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”

Another broadens the discussion:

I think there’s something missing in these posts: an accurate label. Personal atheism is an apathetic stance, since it only describes one’s absence of beliefs compared to others’. But what is always referred to as New Atheism can better be described as anti-theism. It’s not just a statement of personal beliefs, but a political stance against religion as the basis for legal or political policy. Of course, being “anti” something carries a stigma (so that anti-abortion becomes pro-life, or anti-gay becomes pro-“religious freedom”). So perhaps New Atheists – or in my term, anti-theists – can call ourselves pro-secular. But somehow, that doesn’t have the same ring. My main point is that it’s a branding issue. How do you oppose conflating religion and politics without denigrating others’ beliefs?

Another notes, “Regarding Thomas Wells’ article, there’s already this term: Apatheism.” Another reader, less concerned about labeling, sees the value in being a gadfly:

I’m probably one of the “New Atheists” Thomas Wells dislikes or one of the dickheads your reader described. The reason why I’m a dickhead atheist relates to when I realized I was an atheist.

Recently my brother entered into the seminary to become a Catholic priest. After a year, he decided he wanted to have a family and kids, quit the seminary, and got a degree in theology. After he graduated, we began to have discussions about religion and politics. We would get into heated debates while discussing topics like gay marriage and the contraception mandate (I support both; he is against). Every one of his arguments boiled down to “because the Bible says so.” As the arguments continued, I would attempt to use logic, facts, and scientific studies to argue my point. He just became condescending and argued I couldn’t understand his argument because I never studied religion and philosophy. To counter that “argument”, I began to study religion from both points of view (from Aquinas to Dawkins). After doing so, I realized two things:

1) I don’t buy into religion at all
2) I’ll never convince my brother his views are wrong.

I realize I’ll never be able to convince people like my brother there is no God, but I might be able to convince people who were like me. I think it’s important to express my point of view to make others think about their beliefs. Hopefully this can stem the tide of religion forcing its way into public policy.

Another:

When I was a New Atheist I was so angry at believers for needing God to explain the Universe and say what is right. And it’s easy to see the worst in religious people to confirm my views (See Westboro Baptist). Then one day, and I don’t exactly know why, I realized a lot of very good people found meaning in life from the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran. They pray to God and find warmth in their hearts. Who am I to tell them that is wrong? From then on it was just as easy to find the good believers as the bad ones. It only depended on what I was looking for. This Onion article is probably the best way to explain it: “Local Church Full Of Brainwashed Idiots Feeds Town’s Poor Every Week“.

Now, I think it’s best to be a silent voice in support of atheism. The believers that made me feel OK with other believers just did small, good, kind acts each and every day. So I can only do the same. The best way to convert a mad believer into an accepting one is to show that an atheist’s moral code is no different for how we open doors, care for the sick, or extend a hand to those in need. Maybe this is what Francis was talking about for how the believers and atheists can meet on common ground.

On that note, another reader:

Recently a young fellow who openly identified as atheist began attending the same church I do, and by attending I mean fully participating: small group meetings, community service projects, Sunday School – the whole nine yards. It turns out, he is there for much the same reason I am, because he needs friends and community and a church can be a good place to find it.  He is welcomed with open arms and loved by everyone.

Fast forward to a recent Sunday meal with a young couple who also turned up at our church.  When the question was asked how they found out about our church, the answer was through our young atheist friend.  “We thought if you accepted him, then we’d have a place too.” As it turns out, our atheist has been the best recruiter our little church has ever had.  I count at least eight regular attendees he brought with him. Some of them were already people of faith, some were searching, and others were just lonely.

I love that kid and the way he has opened up space in our midst. The church should be a place of refuge for everyone and when it truly is people just might start coming.