I REALLY didn't enjoy taking the SATs. I scored well, but I hated all the drills to prepare, hated getting up early for it and hated those people who wanted to compare scores when we got them back. And the thing I dread most about going back for another degree is taking more standardized tests.
Despite all this, I disagree with the University of California's proposal to stop using SATs in admissions. The university's president, Richard Atkinson, has argued that the test distorts the admissions process, and so it should be dropped. Despite the problems with the SAT, this is a misguided action. Competitive colleges, including the University, need to keep SAT scores as part of the admissions process.
|
Everyone knows SAT scores are not a foolproof way to evaluate a student's college potential. This is especially true for different racial groups - some studies, most notably one conducted by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, have shown that the correlation between SAT scores and college grades is lower for minorities than whites. The fact test prep courses usually improve scores proves test-taking ability is a major part of success.
But SAT scores still have important uses, particularly for large public universities, such as the UC system or the University, or highly prestigious private schools. Such schools, with large numbers of out-of-state applicants, need some way to control for disparities in courses, state standards and grades.
When the admissions committee at the University looks at applications from inside Virginia, it probably knows which high schools are challenging and where it's extremely hard to achieve a high class rank, and which schools are more lenient with grades. When looking at out-of-state applicants, the picture becomes murkier. Without intimate knowledge of a high school's student body and curriculum, the University could, by excluding standardized tests, penalize students who are well prepared for college despite a lower class rank.
Currently such a student would likely score higher on the SAT than a student from an easier school. Looking at both class rank and GPA provides a more balanced picture.
Besides, standardized tests are not going away. Some states use them to measure school achievement and as a requirement to graduate high school. President George W. Bush frequently has gone on record encouraging all states to adopt standardized tests as a measure of accountability. Bush's Web site, for instance, says, "There must be regular testing to ensure that the goals are being met" (http://www.georgewbush.com). Using such tests may actually make the SAT more fair by ensuring all students have exposure to standardized tests.
Eliminating the SAT does not change the centrality of the LSAT to law school admissions and the GRE to graduate school admissions. Sheltering students from facing the SAT in high school does them a disservice when they apply to graduate or professional school, where such tests are very reliable indicators of achievement and more central to the admissions process.
The fact minorities with high areas of achievement in other areas tend to score lower on the SAT doesn't mean the test should be thrown out. Such an action is ridiculously patronizing; it assumes minorities can't do well on this barometer of achievement. But this isn't true.
Law schools realized years ago that one reason for the lower numbers of minorities in top law schools was their lower scores on LSATs. They also noticed fewer minorities took LSAT preparation courses. Both law schools and preparation centers such as Kaplan began offering scholarships for these courses and saw both a rise in scores and a rise in minority admissions. Rather than throw out the LSAT, officials are trying to even out disparities; the same should be done with the SAT.
The University of California's proposal also seeks to replace the SAT with SAT II subject tests. This would exacerbate the problem California seeks to solve. Students could take tests that revealed only their best subject and avoid an overall picture of their ability. The difficulty of these tests often varies by subject and they gauge specific knowledge for which there are no national standards.
Throwing out the SAT would hinder California's attempt to evaluate applicants holistically and is a bad idea the University should avoid emulating. Something less subjective than leadership activities and grade point averages needs to be used. The SAT isn't perfect, which is why it shouldn't be the only criteria. But it's the best objective indicator administrators have, which is why it needs to stay in the admissions process.
(Elizabeth Managan's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at emanagan@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Does this even matter?
By Jacob Tisdale | 4 hours agoIndividuals and communities can use sports to inspire, to hold space, to heal, to break molds, to change narratives, to honor faith or to come home.
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | YesterdayI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | 2 days agoAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
