Standardized tests must be reviewed

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
 Amanda Fletcher
 Kelly Rayburn
 Marcelle Richards
Vytas Mazeika
Corey McEleney
Linh Tat

Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

The SAT I is a test that has little to do with academic
achievement and everything to do with discrimination. The test is
racially and socio-economically biased, and the University of
California must omit it from the admissions process.

However, an in-house study implying the irrelevance of the SAT I
conducted by UC researchers Saul Geiser and Roger Studley and
released Wednesday found that omitting the SAT I from the
admissions process would not help solve the problem of
socio-economic and racial inequalities. According to the report,
“These findings suggest that eliminating the SAT I in favor
of the SAT II … would have little effect on the rates of
eligibility and admissions among students from different
racial/ethnic groups.”

But the public should be skeptical of these findings. There is a
clear conflict of interest when a study on the SAT I is conducted
by an arm of one of its greatest opponents ““ the University
of California and its leader President Richard Atkinson.

To remedy any possible bias, the University of California must
hire a third party to research the effects the SAT I and other
standardized tests have on UC admissions and diversity. This
ensures that the personal politics and agendas of UC officials
don’t interfere with the truth.

Likewise, because students place so much emphasis on the SAT I,
more research should be done after it is eliminated and students
are focusing on other tests. Researchers must determine how racial
and socio-economic bias might afflict the very nature of
standardized testing regardless of test-type. Switching to the SAT
II might contain the same implicit biases contained in the SAT I,
biases we wouldn’t be aware of until we make it the primary
tool for admissions.

While such a study would provide a better understanding of how
accurately standardized testing predicts the success of college
admits, there are still flaws in these measurement tools.

Standardized tests tests don’t account for the
discrepancies in the quality of K-12 education between school
districts. So long as these discrepancies exist, no set of
standardized tests will fairly assess UC applicants across the
board. The SAT I only magnifies the difference between the haves
and the have-nots. And emphasizing the use of the SAT II in its
current format doesn’t resolve the problem because students
can select subjects they excel in, denying the admissions office an
accurate depiction of the whole student.

Having students take five SAT II tests is the Geiser-Studley
report’s most viable recommendation short of scrapping them
altogether. By taking five SAT II tests, students need to
demonstrate their strength in at least three different subject
areas while still receiving a “standard” indication of
their math and verbal strengths.

The Geiser-Studley report itself states that the SAT II is a
preferred subject test because it better reflects the high school
curriculum and is more independent of socio-economic limitations
students may face.

But while giving more weight to SAT II subject tests would
provide a better measuring stick than the SAT I aptitude test, it
is not the end solution. It should serve only as one step forward
in restructuring the admissions process toward a fairer and more
accurate system ““ a goal that will require the concentrated
efforts of both the UC and the state in the years ahead.