View Point
View Point
THE Wall Street Journal recently reported that a proposed federal guide on the use of standardized tests is likely to increase the legal risks to colleges that use popular tests like the SAT in admissions. The SAT is discriminatory;
let’s replace itUnder the proposed guidelines, colleges could potentially be ravaged by lawsuits over the racial and gender score disparities that exist in many of the standardized tests used by their college admissions personnel.
The SAT has been under considerable assault for these very same issues. ETS, the writers of the SAT and its younger sibling, the PSAT, even went so far as to change the very make-up of the PSAT to counter these criticisms.
Now, the main clients of the SAT -- university admissions' departments -- are supposedly going to face the legal consequences that accompany the use of a flawed instrument.
It is time to shift the focus of this debate. For years, we have debated the myriad of problems that accompany the SAT. We must abandon this activity.
Yes, the SAT is flawed. Yes, the SAT is overused. Yes, the SAT discriminates against women and people of color and poor kids from all of the hues in the rainbow.
This does not solve our problem. If we are not going to use the SAT anymore, we need an constructive discussion about what we are going to use.
Everyone must abandon the argument that, "We have to use the SAT because it is the only tool in the shed."
The Princeton Review makes its corporate living preparing kids for the SAT, so it may seem surprising that we would campaign so vigilantly to destroy the test.
But the simple fact is this: We don't like the SAT or what it does to kids. For 15 years, we've told anyone who would listen that the SAT belongs on the trash-heap. Now everybody seems to be offended that the government is pointing out that the garbage is starting to smell.
The SAT is supposed to predict college grades, but there is no evidence that it does so for minorities or women. It is almost entirely inconsistent with the normal high school curriculum and does not test aptitude, knowledge, integrity, curiosity, loyalty or effort.
Finally, students who can afford the ever-increasing fees of the private preparation programs have a significant advantage over those who do not have the same means. The State of California has finally recognized the extent of this problem and is committed to funding approximately $75 million in test preparation services for underprivileged students over the next five years.
Some argue that eliminating the SAT is tantamount to dumbing down the admissions process, that it will result in the selection of less qualified students in lieu of those who have earned the right to be admitted.
BUT the SAT doesn't clarify the search for the most qualified students; it just clouds the process.
Women average 42 points lower than men on the SAT. But women take more academic courses than men do in high school and receive higher grades in every subject except for math, in which their average GPA is virtually identical to that of their male counterparts.
The SAT doesn't help colleges admit students based on merit. In fact, the surest way to dumb down the admissions process would be to keep this test in place.
Admissions officers need the right tools to select a class full of talented, motivated, interesting students. One of the tools that they are entitled to is some kind of fair, accurate, national measurement.
Instead of compounding the SAT's negative effect on American education by opening colleges to potential liability, why not begin the search for a better tool for these same colleges? Let's move past the debate about the value of this test. Instead, let's discuss what should replace it.
Naomi Zell is director of the Princeton Review of Hawaii.