UC Regents should have kept subject test requirement
By Negar Tehrani
Aug. 23, 2009 9:26 p.m.
For those who dislike standardized tests, perhaps the UC Board of Regents’ latest decision regarding undergraduate admissions is long overdue. In February, the UC Board of Regents approved a new admissions policy stating that the entering class of 2012 will no longer be required to take SAT Subject Tests.
While this change in policy sets out to eliminate disadvantages, such as the inability to pay for standardized tests, particularly subject tests, the termination of these tests could create even more inequality between applicants from different socioeconomic levels.
Perhaps the UCs see the subject tests as a disadvantage to students who cannot afford the extra cost of two required SAT Subject Tests.
The UC Board of Regents’ Web site promotes the elimination of the subject tests because their absence from an application is deemed as a “technical flaw” or “a missing test” in a student’s record.
Registration for a subject test costs $20, with $9 for every additional subject test. Assuming a student only registers once for each test because of satisfactory scores, an accomplishment more difficult for some, the total registration costs of the SAT Subject Tests amounts to $29. In addition to the $45 SAT charge, that could be a burdening amount for certain families to pay.
While it is understandable that the costs of the tests may cause some students to put off taking the subject tests, College Board provides fee waivers that cover the entire cost of testing for families that meet the eligibility requirements.
High school students can apply for two fee waivers for the SAT and two for the SAT Subject Tests, and each waiver covers three SAT Subject Tests per registration. These fee waivers not only allow more students to take the tests, but encourage them to do so earlier by offering these waivers at the beginning of freshman year.
Furthermore, the UC admissions Web site states that terminating the subject tests is a way of preventing a “technical flaw” that results from forgetting to take the tests. Forgetting to write your Social Security number or misprinting your mother’s maiden name on an application is a technical flaw, not forgetting to take a vital test. This is not an adequate reason for eliminating the subject tests.
While such changes to the UC admissions policy may be in the interest of providing more diversity on college campuses by reducing obstacles for those who are considered socioeconomically disadvantaged students, the elimination of the SAT Subject Tests may put them at a further disadvantage.
Schools more populated with students who cannot afford such standardized tests are perhaps the same schools that cannot afford extra language, honors or AP courses. By eliminating the SAT Subject Tests, students from these high schools have an even greater disadvantage when applying against students who have had the opportunity to take more advanced courses.
Thus, whereas the SAT Subject Tests would have provided a means of leverage for a more balanced application, these students have an even smaller competitive edge when applying to colleges.
Moreover, the subject tests don’t make the UCs exclusive but rather more selective in their admissions. By offering scores from subject tests, students are able to demonstrate their stronger skills in light of weaker ones, making the selections process a more balanced one.
This selectivity is a significant part of what has made the UCs so strong thus far. So what may appear to be a technicality to some could be the difference between the more academically diverse group of students that the UCs have accumulated thus far and the group that is to come starting fall 2012.
E-mail Tehrani at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].
