Originally Posted by Galian Beast
You're not really paying attention. Take global standings for instance. Let me give you another scenario:
Imagine you can run the 100 meter dash in 10 seconds. And you're the fastest person in your school. Thus you are ranked #1. If 3 kids switch to your school, and they can run the 100 meter dash in 9 seconds, and all of a sudden you're ranked #4 have you done something to become slower?
Not to mention that the SATS aren't taking globally, so it's clearly not a global indicator.
As for SAT scores being down, rather than assuming your conclusion is correct without providing evidence to back it up, you could investigate the cause of lower scores that has data backing it up.
I haven't come to a conclusion myself, because doing so would be presumptuous.
I know SAT's aren't taken globally, I coupled that with global standings for both sides of the measuring process. National historic precedence and global standings are two forms of measurement.
Oh you have come to a conclusion, you're just playing an ambiguous stance to keep from having to assert yourself with any of the facts you think everyone else is obligated to provide (even though our economic and educational standings are factual). So instead you offer ill-fitting metaphors and ignore direct questions.
State your position plainly or just admit you hate the conclusions others are coming to. It's understandable to reject these views; no one can look at it entirely in a pragmatic way and claim to be unaffected.