Friday, March 29, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

Opinion: Use of standardized tests in admissions decisions amplifies inequities

(Emily Dembinski/Illustrations Director)

By Eve Boyd

Sept. 22, 2020 10:37 a.m.

The University of California regularly professes its mission of equality.

But when it comes to admissions, the University needs the courts to remind them what it means to follow through on these promises.

On Aug. 31, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman ruled the UC can no longer use SAT or ACT scores in admissions or scholarship decisions.

The verdict comes more than three months after the UC announced its decision to introduce a “test-optional” policy for fall 2021 and fall 2022 and is the culmination of a nine-month-long lawsuit challenging the University’s use of the SAT and ACT in admissions decisions. The court ruled that the University’s use of standardized tests may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act because disabled students have almost no access to test-taking sites as a result of COVID-19 restrictions, leaving them at a severe disadvantage.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the inequity of the UC’s current admissions policies and the damaging biases of standardized testing. While the court’s injunction is a necessary step to leveling the playing field, standardized testing is not the only factor admissions offices take into account. The UC should use this moment to reassess the fairness of its admissions and work with student groups to create a more accessible process – particularly for students with disabilities.

 

But as it stands, the UC has yet to learn from its mistake.

The University said in an emailed statement representing both the views of the UC Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President that the UC “respectfully disagrees” with the court’s ruling and is assessing whether the injunction warrants further legal action.

Such a stance reveals the University’s disregard for students with disabilities.

“The tests are treated as a plus factor and thus test-submitters are given a second opportunity for admissions consideration,” Seligman wrote in his statement.

That’s a second opportunity that disabled students are denied because they have no access to test-taking sites or accommodations.

The court’s ruling will have an immediate effect on admissions at all UC campuses that are test-optional, including UCLA. However, the decision is not permanent until Seligman makes an official ruling.

It’s embarrassing that it took a pandemic and a court order to force the UC to act. But the University can learn from its mistakes.

The first step is to eliminate any form of standardized testing – even after the pandemic has ended. These tests fail to provide a reliable indicator of college performance and are discriminatory against non-native English speakers, low-income students of color and students with disabilities.

To ensure that the admissions process is more equitable and accessible in the future, the UC should consult with student groups on how to best go about creating a fair admissions process moving forward.

 

“Standardized testing cuts down on staff time,” said Megan Lynch, founder of UC Access Now – a student-led advocacy group focused on accessible design and inclusion for disabled students – in an emailed statement. “It flattens all nuance out of applicants’ complex lives and the context for their academic achievement.”

But the UC always seems to learn the hard way. In May, the UC Board of Regents announced its plan to phase out the use of the SAT and ACT by 2025 and introduce a new, UC-approved test. But there’s no point in simply replacing one flawed test with another.

Victoria Marks, chair of the Disability Studies Faculty Advisory Committee at UCLA, said the current testing policy is unfair to marginalized groups and needs to change.

“I hope that we’ll continue to question the way testing creates an uneven playing field and favors a set of students who already have a lot of privilege,” Marks said.

Second, the University must listen to students. No one knows the difficulties standardized tests present to disabled applicants better than the students themselves. Without engaging with and listening to the perspectives of student groups, the University cannot make any meaningful reforms to the admissions process.

Recently, the UC has made an effort to include more student voices on diversity and inclusion, according to Quinn O’Connor, co-founder of the Disabled Students Union at UCLA. The University created an “ad hoc committee on disability” with student leaders from multiple UC campuses to advocate for students with disabilities at the University-wide level.

“I hope that through the committee we can work with the UC administration to really push for accommodations to take a permanent place and hopefully eliminate all test requirements eventually,” O’Connor said.

The court’s ruling is undoubtedly a bold move and the UC has expressed concern about the ramifications such a strong stance will have on its admissions process. The UC said in a statement that the injunction may disrupt its ability to implement “appropriate and comprehensive admissions policies” and attract a diverse pool of applicants.

The UC may have been able to get away with its unfair test-optional policy during the pre-COVID-19 world, but we are living in a new reality. The current global health crisis has exposed and exacerbated the damaging biases of the admissions process.

It’s unclear how college admissions will look post-pandemic, but the UC needs to take the lead on reforming the application process and eliminating standardized testing.

Otherwise, its commitment to equality is simply an empty promise.

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
Eve Boyd
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts