Eliminating test wouldn’t address real problems

Spiess is a fourth-year mathematics and economics student.

By Eric Spiess

In a period where college admissions are becoming more and more
competitive, there is increasing opposition to the use of the SAT I
as an admissions criterion. Recently, UC President Richard Atkinson
publicly stated his desire to eliminate SAT I scores from
admissions decisions. This bold statement will undoubtedly heat up
the ongoing debate.

Many who oppose the SAT as an admissions criterion favor
eliminating its usage on such grounds that it is not an accurate
indicator of academic ability, it is biased against minorities, and
that wealthy students have an unfair advantage in being able to
take expensive preparatory courses. Instead of using standardized
test scores, many argue that more emphasis should be placed upon
things such as extracurricular activities and personal
statements.

However well-intentioned the SAT opposition is, its efforts are
misguided. This submission will show that the SAT provides useful
information about students’ abilities, it is unfairly blamed
for the inadequacies of the education system, and that eliminating
the SAT would be a step backward in the quest for equal opportunity
in education.

Skepticism about how well the SAT predicts students’
capabilities is nothing new. Many question how a three-hour,
multiple-choice exam can determine a student’s aptitude.
Isn’t it possible that a student is “smarter”
than their scores would suggest? I do not wish to belittle these
concerns, as they do have some merit.

But, it is vitally important to recognize the SAT for what it
is: an imperfect yet useful tool. I don’t know anyone who
believes the SAT is a perfect indicator of success at the college
level. Indeed, some students who score low will nevertheless do
well at the university, while some high-scoring individuals may
only achieve poor to moderate success. Does this mean the SAT
should be eliminated from admissions criteria?

My answer is a qualified no.

University admissions offices choose to consider SAT scores when
evaluating an applicant for several reasons. First and foremost,
they consider these scores valuable information. How do I know
this? It’s simple. If the universities did not feel this way,
then they would cease to use them and this discussion would be
unnecessary.

Not only do universities consider SAT scores because of their
value, but also because of their value relative to their cost.
Information is costly; perfect information is priceless. There is
no single criterion, or even a combination of criteria, to
perfectly gauge an applicant’s capabilities. With this in
mind, we accept the SAT, imperfections included.

Moving on, I find it rather peculiar that the groups whom I
believe benefit most from standardized testing are the very ones
most ardently opposed to it. What better and fairer way could
students from two different high schools be compared than by giving
each an identical test? If it were left solely to human discretion,
an admissions officer could not accurately compare a student with a
3.2 from Urban High School, with one who has a 4.2 from Suburban
High School. Even without inflated GPAs from Advanced Placement
courses, the problem of accurate comparison is still present.

There is no shortage of research to determine whether the SAT
is, in fact, a biased test. Scores indicate that minorities score
significantly lower than their Caucasian counterparts. It is
extremely disconcerting to notice such a disparity. But, I hope to
offer some reasons as to why the charges of bias both lack credence
and are misdirected.

First of all, SAT I makers spend countless hours writing,
reviewing and forming questions that are supposed to measure
academic capabilities, which the universities can then use to
determine admissions. Universities are in the business of
recruiting the best and brightest; it is in their interest to do
so. It is not in their interest to systematically discriminate
against capable minorities simply because of their ethnicity, race,
socioeconomic status, etc. Universities want gifted students who
will succeed, regardless of their skin color.

Another popular criticism of the SAT is that wealthy students
possess an unfair advantage: they are able to spend substantial
amounts on preparatory courses designed to raise their test scores.
On the other hand, students of modest or low-income families find
this practice cost prohibitive. For this reason, it has been
proposed to focus on other criteria where wealthy students
don’t have such an advantage.

Popular SAT alternatives are personal statements and
extracurricular activities. Unfortunately, both of these measures
fail miserably.

Personal statements are problematic for several reasons. First
of all, their authorship is not verifiable. Any student can receive
an unlimited amount of assistance from teachers, guidance
counselors, parents and others. This raises the question of whether
or not the personal statement truly reflects the student’s
capability, or someone else’s.

Suppose the SAT I were eliminated in favor of placing increased
emphasis on personal statements. The same “wealthy”
students would take the money previously used for prep courses and
spend it to aid them in writing their personal statements. Parents,
who are willing and able to devote large sums in order to ensure
that their children get the best education, will continue to do
so.

A similar problem would arise if admissions departments decided
to increase the importance of extracurricular activities. I’m
hard pressed to think of something more ill-conceived and harmful
to low-income students.

Who is in a better position to be involved in extracurricular
activities, the poor student or the wealthy one? While the
low-income student might spend their afternoons working to support
their family, the wealthy one bides their time in sports, volunteer
work, etc. How could an admissions office possibly compare the two?
Any attempt to weigh the merits of varsity basketball against those
of an after-school job would be unfair.

There is no doubt that the college admissions process is
imperfect at best. Admissions officers have the unenviable task of
selecting a chosen few from a vast pool of applicants. With perfect
information about each student, the task is daunting; imperfect
information renders it all but impossible. Like a craftsman, the
university must choose which tools to use.

Sometimes there isn’t a tool designed perfectly for the
job, and the craftsman has to make do with what’s available.
The university is like a craftsman with an incomplete set of tools;
it must make do with what it has.

Rather than attack the university admission procedures, action
must be directed at the root of the problem. Nothing is to be
gained from eliminating the SAT as an admissions requirement.

The SAT may reveal great disparities and highlight inequalities.
The problems lie in our schools, where the disparities and
inequalities originate. Instead of eliminating the SAT I, and
thereby sweeping the problem under the rug, we should avail
ourselves of its service.

The SAT I is a humbling reminder that our K-12 schools are
unequal and need improvement. It has the ability to measure our
progress toward true equality of educational opportunity by
delivering a report card on the state of our educational system. No
matter how bad the grade, there is no reason to shoot the
messenger.