Income not barrier to SAT success
I am writing this in response to Sophia’s Smith’s
submission, “Exam
has no bearing on academics, just economics” (Daily
Bruin, Viewpoint, Nov. 8). Her position is that a person’s
socioeconomic background will affect their score on the SAT exam.
Her reasoning is that people whose families have lower incomes will
not score as well because they do not have access to Kaplan SAT
classes or test prep books. While it is true that low-income
families will not be able to afford a class, it is certainly not
necessary to take a class to improve your scores.
I raised my score by 130 points by retaking the test and doing a
few practice tests in Princeton Review books. Oh, right. Poor
people have no ability to purchase these books. Ah, but they do
have access to libraries. Libraries are free to all, and they have
a decent selection of test-prep materials.
I went to the Santa Clara County (my home county) library
internet catalog. I found twelve different titles that fell under
SAT prep materials. Granted, some of them were to be used on a
computer, but most libraries nowadays offer the use of a
computer.
Additionally, the College Board Web site has test prep questions
available to all and library computers can be used to access these
questions. Another source of free test prep materials is the paper
registration pamphlet. There are practice tests available in these,
so for this, all you need is a pencil. A fourth option, and a way
around the SAT I all together is to attend community college. It is
inexpensive, and the UC transfer application does not even require
SAT results.
Finally, Smith might argue that I took the SAT three times, and
I can afford to do so. You can easily get around this with a fee
waiver, allowing those on the lower income scale to take the test
as many times as they please, the best possible practice.
Therefore, these traits, while they can be
“acquired-by-credit-card traits” can also be
acquired-through-ingenuity-and-individual-effort (and entirely for
free).
Matt Sorensen Third-year History
Students: don’t support tobacco
companies
In Tuesday’s edition of the Daily Bruin, I noticed in the
“Briefs” section on the second page a short article
about four UCLA students who won a marketing contest for Kraft
Foods (“UCLA
wins Kraft Foods marketing contest,” News, Nov. 13).
While I applaud the fact that we have such talented students here
at UCLA, I am a bit disappointed that these students chose to
participate in this competition.
Kraft Foods is a subsidiary of the Philip Morris Company, the
world’s largest tobacco conglomerate. Tobacco kills 4 million
people around the world every year (projected to rise to 10 million
by the year 2030 by the World Health Organization), and
tobacco-related illness is the world’s leading preventable
cause of death.
The “Marlboro Man” created in 1954 by Jack Landry to
“capture the youth’s market fancy” is arguably
the world’s leading source of youth tobacco addiction. As
Philip Morris has introduced the Marlboro Man into new markets in
Asia and Eastern Europe, youth smoking rates have dramatically
increased.
Furthermore, as tobacco transnationals such as Philip Morris
continue to globalize their enterprises, resources have been
funneled from developing countries into the bank accounts of
wealthy corporations in the industrialized world.
Ever wonder why our politicians have seemingly done very little
to reverse the massive problems related to tobacco? Well, the fact
that the tobacco industry contributed millions of dollars to both
major political parties during the 2000 elections may have
something to do with it. In fact, Philip Morris cheated the
$100,000 cap on contributions to Bush Jr.’s inaugural
committee by writing two separate checks ““ one as Philip
Morris and another as Kraft.
Furthermore, Bush’s senior advisor Karl Rove is a former
Philip Morris employee, and Secretary of Health and Human Services
Tommy Thompson has close ties with both Kraft Foods and Miller
Brewing company (another Philip Morris subsidiary).
With all that is known about the dangers of cigarette smoking,
it is time that everybody recognize the ruthless and deceptive
practices of the tobacco industries for what they are ““ the
acts of murderers ““ and cease supporting these heartless
companies by purchasing their products.
Once again, congratulations to the UCLA students who won the
Kraft Foods competition. However, I think it would be a huge and
powerful statement (and I know this is all too easy for me to say
since I did not win) if they returned the gifts, rejected the
$15,000 of blood money going to their scholarship fund, and used
their interviews with Kraft not to win a job but rather to express
their concerns about the heartless, greed-driven practices of a
company which has “made a killing” for far too
long.
Eric Tang Second-year Political science