Michael Braun's Blog

I’ve been thinking about how to classify Wii Fit and its accompanying Wii Balance Board. The Balance Board was easier than the software. Simply, it’s a device, just like a game controller. It sends signals to the system; the system’s software translates those signals into the game. It’s not a fitness tool per se. The software is more difficult. It’s a game, in that you play it on a game system. I can’t put it in my DVD player, nor run it on my computer. And it’s got games as part of the package: soccer heading, ski slalom and jump, et cetera. But when reviewing my use of Wii Fit and motivation for continuing to use it, Wii Fit goes beyond game. In the end, I’ve classified the whole package as a tool.

I’ve had Wii Fit for one week now and have used it each of those seven days. When Lauren and I unpacked it and started playing last Wednesday, we loved the balance games. They were easy to play and we saw immediate improvement in our scores. The games were also quick. It was easy to do half a dozen ski jump runs before grudgingly handing over control of the Balance Board to the other. We enjoyed the aerobics activities as well, which seem to fall in line with the games: hula hoop spin, step dancing, and more – they’re almost as fun as the games. We explored the strength and yoga activities as well, but spent most of our time playing the games.

As the days have progressed, I have used Wii Fit only slightly less than that first day. In fact, my usage has been steady at around 30 minutes per day. But for both Lauren and I, the games now serve only as a break from the strength and yoga exercises. For the most part, we turn on Wii Fit to get physically activity. And that’s why I call it a tool.

For the past few days, I’ve been almost exclusively doing the strength and yoga activities. I don’t have a routine yet, but instead dart around to different activities. I like the push ups and the plank. I also appreciate the low impact leg exercises. Leg strength training I had been doing at the Y was causing strain on my knees, so it’s nice to have some different exercises to do.

Wii Fit is a tool not just because I use it to enhance my exercise routine; it’s also a tool because the competition aspects can be easily based around personal achievement. I don’t have to try to beat Lauren on certain strength or yoga activities. If I know I will never beat her, I can still try to beat my own previous records. And because it is not easy to switch back and forth between users on the same activity (i.e. Lauren and I can’t go head to head in ski jump), it keeps the focus on the fitness aspects of the software. What kind of game would do that?

If you bought Wii Fit to have it as a fun game, I hope some different software will come out soon that takes full advantage of the Balance Board and offers you a more game-like package. Wii Fit serves me best as something that makes me want to exercise, whether that be with Wii Fit, or going to the Y. I’m doing that shortly here and am excited to see how Wii Fit will work with my normally scheduled exercises. Judging by the fact that my muscles have been mildly sore for the last seven days, I think it has already earned a place in my heart, and hopefully will do it some good the more I use it.

While the evidence is largely anecdotal, it seems that there is a potential trend abrew: colleges dropping standardized tests (SAT and ACT) from their admission requirements. It’s a bold move, but one that can only help students. Here’s why.

1. The standardized test industry is big business! Test companies develop the tests, then sell them to students ($43 for SAT, $30 for ACT without Writing section; $44.50 with). If a student does not wish to pay for the test, she is nearly guaranteed to be kept out of colleges. Other companies develop study books and classes for the exams, promising better results. Students pay even more money to take these classes. Overall, this is a lot of money out of students’ pockets, just for the chance to go to college (as the test itself, and the prep classes, do nothing to guarantee admission).

2. The requirements on the test are already measured by high school graduation requirements. The ACT contains 5 sections (up from 4 when I took it): English, Reading, Math, Scientific Reasoning, and Writing (optional). It’s hard to imagine a high school in the United States that does not teach these five areas. While the quality of teaching is sure to vary school to school, state to state, colleges should be able to rely on the grades reported for the student to determine their abilities in these areas. The SAT’s more restricted subject areas (Reading, Math, and Writing) are equally representative of high school subject matter.

3. The test cannot be a complete measure of success for college. The ACT and SAT claim that they can determine if a student will be successful in college. I did well on the ACT, well in college, and well on the GRE – seems like I fit their mold. But the ACT did not predict that I would avoid parties, go to the library on Saturday and Sunday, get all my reading done before class, and get a D on my first-ever college paper. But those things all happened. I know of two separate cases from my high school. One, a student who got a 34 on the ACT, dropped out of college, and now works at a record shop in Milwaukee. Two, a student who got a 19, graduated college in five years, and is now going back to school to get a teaching license. The ACT would have predicted just the opposite based on these scores.

4. Learning that takes place in college is far above and beyond that which takes place in high school. Most importantly is social learning. For those students lucky enough to go to college and be able to live in the dorms, this experience alone is more education than all of high school. Additionally, those students who choose to go to class and study will find their mind expanded, no matter where they go to college (big/small, local/far away, et cetera). College offers more opportunities and more diverse perspectives than high school; thus, even the student scoring low on a standardized test is sure to find much in the college experience. Who’s to say that that student should not have this chance simply because he was disadvantaged on a standardized test?

Overall, it’s a tough case to make for getting rid of the test. College admission boards have relied on these scores for a long time. And with no competing data (doubtful that boards would agree to admit half the student body with no test scores, the other half with, and then compare dropout rates and GPAs), why should they make a change now? I hope that all college admission boards will take a look at those bold schools doing away with requirements for a standardized test. This will make it easier for potentially deserving students to make it into college as well as put pressure on the test companies to develop tests with more accurate measures and fewer biases.