The American education system is said to revolve around the concept of meritocracy. In theory, the smartest people rise to the top of their classes and get into the best schools.
This idea sounds good in theory, but it fails in practice.
“The problem is that, over time, the inequality…has produced mechanisms – most significantly the growing test prep industry – that largely subvert the single method whereby mobility is achieved,” MSNBC host Chris Hayes wrote in his book, “Twilight of the Elites: America After Meritocracy.”
Here’s the problem: How well students test largely depends on how much money their families can spend on tutoring. So our focus on standardized tests means that admission to college depends on economic status instead of intellectual capability or personal accomplishments.
Hayes refers to his alma mater, Hunter High School College, which only admits students with the highest state tests scores. But there's a heavy relaince on the SATs and ACTs in the admissions process.
Tests that gauge academic aptitude are inherently flawed and unequal, because in many cases, a person’s ability to afford test preparation can determine how high they score. That’s why the University should look to move to a test-optional system that would allow, but not force, students to submit SATs and ACTs.
Granted, the University does take into account other aspects of a student’s application, including a high school transcript, an application essay and in some cases, an interview.
But in today’s competitive era, students still feel compelled to take exams multiple times and get tutors for preparation, which becomes expensive.
The University tries to promote a culture of socio-economic inclusiveness by touting that nearly 60 percent of students receive financial aid. Getting rid of the SAT and ACT requirement is another way to make the college application process fairer and more affordable.
The University has already started to move away from relying on standardized tests as an indicator of student success. It does not mandate that students submit SAT subject test scores, unlike other universities, including Georgetown.
If GW decided to go test-optional, it certainly wouldn’t be the first to do so. Nearly one quarter of American colleges and universities offer some sort of test-optional alternative, according to educational organization FairTest. This list includes American and New York universities, both of which do not require students to submit SAT or ACT scores when they apply.
Besides, the main skill standardized tests measure is how well students can take tests. They don't show how hard students work in school or the amount of improvement they make in a subject over the course of a semester.
It makes sense to place more emphasis on three years' worth of hard work, rather than a single four- or five-hour test at 9 a.m. on a Saturday.
If the University is unwilling to do away with standardized testing completely, administrators could adopt a program similar to Middlebury College. There, students are required to take standardized tests, but they have the option of submitting three subject tests instead of being restricted to only the SATs or ACTs.
This allows students to take tests in their strongest academic areas, meaning their affinity for a subject could help them succeed, as opposed to having to expend financial resources on a tutor to learn test-taking strategies.
Some students will inherently perform poorly on the SATs and the ACTs, no matter how intelligent they are. Yet others can receive a near-perfect score without putting an ounce into studying. But that shouldn’t necessarily warrant a higher likelihood of acceptance into an elite university.
We’d like to believe the education system is meritocratic, that every student who applies to a school has an equal chance of getting in. It should emphasize giving all applicants an equal chance. It should be a meritocracy.
But until the SATs and ACTs are rendered obsolete or optional, attaining success from hard work alone is nothing more than a pipe dream.
–The writer, a sophomore majoring in political communication, is The Hatchet’s contributing opinions editor.
While I think the argument that is made here is incredibly valid and worth considering, I think that unfortunately the overemphasis on standardized testing is so prevalent throughout the American educational and professional systems as to make it very difficult to eliminate. Part of this that the standardization of standardized tests by definition makes them an easier (though maybe not more valid) way to compare people in competitive application pools. This seems to be an issue that requires more than scattered schools making this decision unilaterally, as a student will still end up having to take the SAT or ACT if they want to apply to more than a handful of VERY different schools.
Furthermore, as students move beyond college they will often have standardized tests to take for graduate school admissions, professional accreditation, etc. I am graduating medical school soon, and over the past 4 years have taken the MCAT to get into med school; nationwide “shelf” exams after every rotation; and the USMLE Step 1, Step 2 written, and Step 2 practical exams as part of licensure. I will have to take USMLE Step 3 for licensure, then take board exams in both Internal Medicine and a subspecialty down the road. My question is, are the SAT/ACT actually beneficial to students long-term by helping them to train for the many standardized tests they will take in the future?
This is stupid. You can’t actually study for the SAT or ACT. It’s an IQ test. The test prep industry is a scam. I got a 2250 on the SAT and didn’t spend one cent or one minute preparing. Meanwhile my friend from high school got somewhere around an 1800 after taking it four times, taking a class and buying every review book he could. Standardized tests are imperfect but it’s the best way to fairly compare students’ intellectual abilities across time and space, since GPA is way too flexible of a measurement. I could have gone to a bullshit high school and taken easy classes and gotten a 4.0 even if I was an idiot. Having a standardized measurement of intellect helps to differentiate those people from their peers at more rigorous institutions.
The main skill measured is how smart you are, not how well you take tests. In the words of Daniel Tosh, “you’re a bad test taker? You mean you’re just not good at that thing where we find out what you know? No, you’re stupid. Kind of like how I’m a brilliant painter, but every time the brush hits canvas, I suddenly develop Parkinson’s.”
Truth.
So incredibly true. Also just want to add that this is incredibly hypocritical coming from a student that attends a private school costing as much as GW does.
Justin – do you ever write columns that aren’t ridiculously stupid? Life isn’t all rainbows and butterflies. You’re never going to have this perfect utopia. This current system works. Get over it.
There are flaws with standarized testing but by and large it is the best way to test someone’s intelligence. It is very difficult to train for a test and you need a tutor to do it anyways. All it takes is $40 and an ACT prep book. All tutors do is take practice tests with you and show you what you got wrong. Anyone can do that with you.
You have a better chance of paying for tutoring and getting higher grades in classes. This is a much more common problem. Someone with resources in a well to do community could pay for a kid to do well and get a strong GPA even if he is unintelligent while someone with a bad home environment can struggle and get B+ but then score a 2400 or 36.
Well written article–terrible idea and thought process though
Saying someone is smart, but not a good test taker is like saying you’re a great artist, but only in your head. Standardized tests are there because schools are very different, some hand out As like breath mints, some are actually competitive. For me, having come from a European high school, my 2100 (no tutoring whatsoever) was an important factor in proving to GW that I was a worthwhile candidate.
Sure, standardized tests are flawed, but you inevitably need to compare student academic performance in some consistent (standardized) way. It’s already hard to compare HS GPAs within a single high school (different teachers, different rigor of classes, etc). How are you planning to compare GPAs across the nation? The simple fact is that you can’t do it accurately.
As for the argument that a 4-5 hour test might not be a fair “reflection” of your ability, well, your performance on that test isn’t just “4-5 hours of work”. It’s actually what you’ve learned throughout your many years of schooling. Standardized tests are a part of many future careers (whether it be law, medicine, business, etc) and students might as well get used to them anyways.
Saying you are a “bad test taker” is usually just an excuse for one’s poor performance. If you perform poorly and really don’t think it reflects your “true ability”, well then prepare and retake it. Maybe instead of blaming the test (and making excuses), students who are “bad test takers” should humble themselves and hit the books. In reality, no one cares how well you think you are if you can’t show it when it matters. As Hiliary alluded to above, you can think you are a great artist but if you can’t actually show it when you need to (i.e., when it comes time to paint), then it means absolutely nothing.
If Justin argues that SAT scores lack value because wealthy students are unfairly advantaged and poor students are unfairly disadvantaged… then I think you have to take it to its logical conclusion.
The admissions office would need to ignore high school transcripts, since poor kids can’t afford tutors the way rich kids can. You’ll need to ignore the extra-curricular activities too because poor kids don’t have time for those (they’re busy working and earning money for the family) while rich kids do. Ignore internships (poor kids don’t have the means to work for free). And finally, you’ll have to ignore the interview too, since poor kid probably lack a white-collar parent to coach them on proper interview technique the way rich kids do.
Justin’s heart is in the right place, but I have to say: it’s just very naive to think one can eliminate all the advantages in life that benefit people who are socio-economically privileged. I’m not even a Republican. I’m just being realistic.
I’d love to hear his proposal on how to fairly measure students for admissions purposes.
I am impressed by the numerous well-thought-out, well-written responses to this article. That’s not always the case on these sites, and I applaud you all. I regularly read the opinions and comments at several other universities, and the reasoned and sometimes humorous notes here today are the best I’ve seen in a while. Thanks!
this is a really nice idea on paper but the truth is these tests are the closes thing to a level playing field that exists in college admissions, and they’re a pretty good indicator of ability to succeed in college