HONESTLY, no one likes taking the SATs. Sitting in a classroom for hours on a Saturday with a calculator, a couple pencils and 30 other jittery high school juniors isn't anybody's idea of a good time. But the result is a score. A number that lets you and the colleges you apply to know where you stand among your peers. And it's necessary.
With the University of California system threatening to drop the SAT, the College Board - the organization that writes and administers the test - is considering drastically altering the test. As it stands now, the SAT is far from perfect, and there is no doubt that some change is necessary. Change, however, must be approached cautiously if the test is to retain any of its validity.
One of the chief complaints about the "Scholastic Aptitude Test" is that it does not test what actually is learned in high school.
According to the College Board Web site, "the SAT I measures your verbal and math reasoning abilities. Your SAT I scores can help you and colleges better understand how you compare with other students preparing for college" (http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/html/students/prep010.html). The test is useful as a comparative tool and a way to assess overall ability, not a test of specific knowledge.
|
The College Board already has addressed concerns about not testing what students are taught by adding subject tests. These tests - SAT II tests - are geared toward mastery of a specific subject. They also are less objective, with the writing test consisting of essays as well as multiple-choice questions. These tests provide colleges with a viable option should they wish to compare subject area achievement among applicants. Additionally, high school transcripts and class rankings, although not standard across the country, allow colleges to see whether or not students understand what they are being taught.
One of the areas under attack from those who claim that the test does not reflect what students are taught, and a section the College Board is considering dropping, is the analogy questions. True, students do not spend much, if any, time studying analogies in high school. That doesn't mean, however, that analogies are a poor way of evaluating English skills. They demand an understanding of the way the language functions, beyond simple word memorization.
The proposed substitution for the analogy section is a writing section. Including writing samples in a test like the SAT would lessen the value of the test as a way to compare students. Writing samples cannot be graded with the precision and objectivity of multiple-choice questions. Colleges already are able to evaluate writing samples through the SAT II writing test and through application essays.
The real problem with the SAT lies not in whether or not it specifically addresses what students learn in high school, but in how certain groups perform, and why. Typically, blacks and Latinos score lower on the test, as do those in lower socio-economic positions. The proposed changes do not address these problems. Cultural bias will exist even if the math section is expanded to include higher-level math. Students who can afford expensive prep courses still will stand the best chance of performing well.
Changes need to be made to the SAT, and the College Board should be commended for acknowledging this need. But hasty changes will do more harm than good. The College Board typically spends more than a year trying out new test questions before they are added. In that context, proposing drastic changes for 2006 is rushed. Rushing changes through almost certainly would result in inconsistencies and would undermine the test's usefulness as a comparative tool.
The SAT is not a perfect measure of a student's probable performance in college, and schools know this. That is why, as any prospective student who sits through the admissions talk in Newcomb Theater is told, colleges consider applications holistically. The test still is, however, the closest thing to an objective means to compare a student from Iowa to a student from Northern Virginia.
Eliminating the test, as the California system may do, is foolish. It only will make admissions decisions harder and it will make no guarantee that more qualified students will be admitted. The effects of any changes that undermine the objectivity or consistency of the test will have the same effect. Any changes that the College Board feels are necessary must be considered more carefully and made more slowly than the current proposal suggests.
(Megan Moyer's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mmoyer@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
