To Ditch or not to Ditch - The SAT debate revisited

[asteriskea]

<p>The staff of the Harvard Crimson chimes in on the perennial SAT debate in the wake of the goings-on at the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC) Conference held last week and the creation of a “Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission” to be chaired by Harvard Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons. A report will be issued next year. </p>

<p>“An Imperfect Necessity - Standardized testing may be flawed, but it is unavoidable”:</p>

<p>

In the current admissions system … standardized tests will continue to serve a useful role for many colleges. Scores, although limited in their predictive power, still provide a nationally standardized benchmark against which admissions officers may quickly garner a rough idea of an applicant’s comparative academic ability…</p>

<p>What reformers and Fitzsimmons’ Commission should focus on, then, is not getting rid of standardized tests but finding ways to level the playing field within the context of the existing system. There are many ways to do so. The College Board, which administers the SAT, could reduce the cost of their expensive and lucrative test prep materials so that preparation becomes less of a luxury good. Moreover, colleges could share with each other information on the quality of instruction of different high schools, making it easier for deluged admissions offices to judge a student’s coursework relative to standards of his or her school. In the long run, this would allow colleges to de-emphasize standardized testing and focus on other measures of aptitude. Such solutions would reduce the inequities imposed by standardized tests without destroying a useful tool because it is flawed.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519797[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519797&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and the counterpoint piece:</p>

<p>“Ditch the SAT: Despite its convenience, the SAT is the wrong tool to gauge students’ future success” by Robert King.</p>

<p>

…Given the serious flaws of the SAT and other standardized tests that purport to measure general reasoning abilities, including a limited ability to predict success in college compared to other measures, there is no justification for continuing to require it for college admissions. Bates College made the SAT optional in 1984, and other schools, such as Sarah Lawrence College, have followed suit. Harvard and other institutions of higher education nationwide should do the same.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519798[/url]”>http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519798&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[tokenadult]

<p>Yeah, right, Bates and Sarah Lawrence are leading the nation on this issue. :rolleyes:</p>

[midmo]

<p>tokenadult, you wrote what I was thinking. Wow, Sarah Lawrence doesn’t use the SAT!</p>

[asteriskea]

<p>Let’s then just chalk this one up to noblesse oblige. The purpose of the National Association for College Commission on the Use of Standardized Tests in Undergraduate Admission is to update the 1999 study “Myths and Trade-offs” which has up till now largely defined the contours of the national discussion on the role of standardized testing in undergraduate admissions practice. The newly commissioned study has several important aims that include the creation of policies or statements governing the use of standardized tests in admission (standardization of standardized testing) as well as an attempt to tackle the issue of transparency in the guise of more, and hopefully, better information for the public - “to increase understanding of the use of standardized test scores in undergraduate admission”.</p>

<p>Obviously, the role of these tests - both the ACT and the SAT - in undergraduate admissions continues to be a hotly debated topic, and one that elite institutions are precisely not setting out to either define or delimit policy or debate - and that certainly includes the growing number of IHEs going the route of adopting some sort of test optional policy. </p>

<p>

Ultimately, each college is uniquely situated to resolve the debate over the fairness or usefulness of standardized tests for admission to their campus. Admission officers must therefore exercise due diligence in understanding how to properly interpret test scores. Colleges and universities must continue to conduct research—independent of the testing agencies—that determines how or whether test scores, as well as other admission criteria, predict student performance at their institutions.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/AboutNACAC/Governance/Committees/Testingcommission.htm[/url]”>http://www.nacacnet.org/MemberPortal/AboutNACAC/Governance/Committees/Testingcommission.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Here is a link to the Myths and Trade-offs paper (pdf):</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.nacacnet.org/NR/rdonlyres/C482A2C3-715B-4804-ADE7-2FCACDEBA75D/0/MythsandTradeoffs_NRCReport_1998.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nacacnet.org/NR/rdonlyres/C482A2C3-715B-4804-ADE7-2FCACDEBA75D/0/MythsandTradeoffs_NRCReport_1998.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;