No, I still think they should be required. While some may feel the test is unfair, I still think that it serves a purpose. And this is coming from someone whose math score was pretty awful.
All due respect, Raizel, I can’t really see what that purpose is. I know an Amherst student who took the SATs somewhere upwards of ten times, improving his/her score until he/she got a 1600. I can’t speak to this student’s motivations, but it certainly says something about how the tests work. These standardized tests appear to measure of one’s test-taking ability and preparation. Test-taking is not one of the skills that Amherst tries so desperately to teach us. We can actually get out of here taking barely any final exams if we plan our schedules accordingly (see my transcript!) and clearly, the ability to take a test over and over is not going to help us get through Amherst. Our admission to Amherst really shouldn’t be contingent on our ability to test well.
Moreover, the ability to take the SAT over and over and therefore improve your score is contingent on privilege, especially the availability of time and money, in a way that Amherst’s current president must decry in his unending commitment to economic diversity in the student body. SAT prep courses are costly, to say nothing of the actual test fee itself ($20 per subject test [Amherst requires at least two], $45 for the main reasoning test). The admissions office can’t seriously say that they are deeply interested in the candidate’s ability to pay for and attend SAT prep courses or take the test. Need-blind admissions should mean need-blind, not “need-blind after you’ve managed to pay for your SATs”. College Board places an even higher burden on international students, imposing a $26 international processing fee “for students testing in countries other than the United States, U.S. territories, and Puerto Rico” and a $23 “additional surcharge for testing in India and Pakistan” (http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/calenfees/fees.html). I have trouble seeing how test results so deeply governed by the relative privilege of applicants can possibly continue to be required for admission to Amherst.
3tanderson10 (tanderson10)// May 31, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. I just want to add something else I heard from a Chinese student on campus: apparently China refuses to allow SAT testing to take place on the mainland. I spoke with a student here who had to fly to Hong Kong just to take the test and gain admission into U.S. colleges. I guess you could say that this is China’s problem and not the College Board’ss, but still, it’s a situation where SAT requirements create unnecessary barriers to college admission.
Scott, I agree with many of the problems you mention in your post, but I don’t agree with your conclusion. Certainly, the SAT/ACT tests are measurements of test-taking ability and preparation, and this favors students of wealth and privilege. Prep courses, tutors, and months of studying can improve scores by hundreds of points, and not everyone has these advantages. However, we shouldn’t overstate the extent to which the SAT/ACT tests measure test-taking ability and preparation, only to conveniently overlook that they still provide at least some measure of natural ability – and that they are measures that, unlike GPA and class rank, are the same for students from all different high schools.
Granted, I haven’t done the research to back this up (this is a response to a blog post, after all), but I would be blown away if someone could credibly deny that SAT/ACT scores are at least in small part a measure of natural ability, intelligence, IQ, etc. Not everyone is capable of scoring of scoring a 1600 (or 2400, if we’re using the newfangled numbers). Maybe the difference between a 1200 and a 1400 or between a 1400 and a 1600 can be chalked up to test-taking ability and preparation, but the difference between an 800 and a 1600? I find it hard to believe that natural ability does not determine some sort of ceiling for SAT scores. Test-taking ability and preparation certainly play a part, but the same can probably be said of any sort of test. If someone spent months studying for an IQ test, s/he would probably improve her/his score (yes, I’m making an assumption here), but does that mean IQ scores are merely a function of test preparation?
In fact, most of the charges leveled against the SAT/ACT tests apply almost equally to high school GPAs and class ranks. It’s certainly possible to make it through Amherst without taking many tests, but I don’t think the same can be said of many high schools. Aren’t high school GPAs and class ranks largely measurements of test-taking skills and preparation? And doesn’t that favor students of wealth and privilege? A high school student who comes from a low-income family and has to work two jobs to help put food on the table might have little time to study, and as a result, his/her grades may not be on par with those of his/her more affluent classmates. Does this mean we should also completely disregard high school GPA and class rank?
Of course not. We simply need to take all of these measurements (SAT/ACT scores, GPA, class rank) with a grain of salt, not forgetting to take into account the circumstances of the individual student. A poverty-stricken, multiple-job-working student in a terrible school district with a 3.8 and a 2200 is infinitely more impressive than a wealthy, SAT-acing valedictorian from Long Island who has never had a job and isn’t involved in any extracurricular activities.
Admittedly, some people might argue that we profit little from adding yet another unfair measurement (SAT/ACT scores) on top of others (GPA, class rank). Here, however, is where I have to agree with Raizel. Flawed though they are, SAT/ACT scores serve a function that high school performance alone cannot: They are the only common measurement with which to compare students from different high schools.
Some schools are simply more difficult than others; only some schools offer AP and Honors courses; and grading systems vary incredibly. A valedictorian with a 106 average from a weaker high school may be less prepared for Amherst than a student who is twentieth in his class at a highly competitive high school. The only way to fairly compare two such students may be with SAT/ACT scores. Students with the means to extensively prepare are certainly at an advantage, but the playing field is somewhat leveled between the privileged students of an “easy” high school and the privileged students of a highly competitive high school, and likewise between the underprivileged students in “easy” and competitive high schools, respectively.
Few things in life are completely fair, and the SAT/ACT tests are no different. But that doesn’t make them useless. Though these tests come with their own set of inequalities, the same inequalities apply everywhere; everyone takes the same test. The SAT/ACT tests are “equally unequal” and “universally unfair” (if those terms make any sense).
One final thought: Though the SAT/ACT tests certainly favor students of wealth and privilege with the means to prepare themselves, they also reward hard-working, motivated students who put in the time to prepare. Consider two equally bright, equally privileged students who are both enrolled in Kaplan SAT courses and have the same private tutor. One chooses to do the bare minimum, shirking his SAT prep homework and only half-heartedly taking a few practice tests; he scores a 2200 on his SATs. The other student throws herself into her SAT prep, doing all of the homework and diving into as many practice tests as she can; she scores a perfect 2400. Clearly, the second student was rewarded for her hard work, which was only possible because the SAT tests preparation in addition to natural ability. Should that be ignored? Who is more likely to succeed at – and contribute to – Amherst: a motivated “smart” person or a lazy genius?
People often cite the fact that SAT scores are a worse predictor of college grades than high school grades are. However, when used in conjunction, they are a better predictor than either alone (an obvious insight to anyone who has taken stats!). When used along, they may be ridiculous, but in conjunction with the rest of an admissions package, they can be quite useful.
Moreover, do you think that Amherst really uses the SAT as stupidly as you suggest? Surely, if the college weighed extra-curricular talent, grades, letters or essays vastly out of proportion to the other factors, then the admissions decisions would be based on absurd things as well. And these other factors also go along highly with privilege, too - think of athletic ability, or instrument-playing, or the college essays. And don’t forget that colleges see how many times you take the SAT!
Even if you give reasons why the SAT is poor measure of the things you’re looking for in an applicant, you have to give much stronger reasons for it to be optional in admissions packages, unlike grades, letters or essays.
Just because the SAT is an imperfect measure does not mean that it is a worthless measure.
Yes, some people may have an “unfair” ability to retake the test 10 times and thus improve their score. I would bet, though, that the number of people who took the test more than twice–even at Amherst–is pretty small. It’s not like this is a five-minute online quiz. Also, I feel like Scott has to be exaggerating. Aren’t there around 5-6 testing dates per year? This person would have had to start early sophomore year and taken a test every date until their application was in. That seems unreasonable.
Furthermore, I agree that your score will probably improve on multiple retesting, but there have to be diminishing returns. You’ll benefit from added familiarity with the test to some degree, and you’ll probably be more relaxed if you’ve gone through it once or twice, but you’re just not going to linearly increase your score until you hit perfect after 10 tries. Unlimited multiple retests will help you reach your ultimate potential on the test, but that is still going to reflect your natural ability. You can receive most of the benefits of multiple testing by doing the free practice tests provided by the College Board. It might be harder to police yourself accordingly if you don’t have money on the line for an actual test or a private tutor, but I just don’t think the test itself is as naturally sensitive to privilege as people like to say.
More importantly, though, I think that the SAT increases in relevance when you have made a commitment to diversity in the school. The admissions department is going to be quite familiar with Newton High, Greenwich High, New Treir, Exeter, the Menlo School, etc. They can make pretty good judgments about students from these schools from transcript and class rank.
If we want diversity though, it’s going to mean digging deeper and finding absolute standouts from a different group of high schools. Just going on class rank and transcript, then, is going to tell you nothing about the student. Being ranked first in a class that sends 30% or less of its graduates to college is meaningless in the context of Amherst admissions. Sure, some of these kids are going to be truly great, but there will be just as many who, impressive though their accomplishment may be, will simply not be up to Amherst standards. This is where the SAT is useful. The admissions department isn’t going to chose one kid over another when, all other things being equal, the first scored a 1450 and the second a 1430. However, if you’re looking at two kids from inner-city/geographically diverse high schools, the difference between a valedictorian with an 1100 and one with a 1500 is going to be informative. Yes, that first might have been able to score a 1200 if he had a private tutor or took the test 5 times, but he’s also not being compared with someone who had those resources either.
The SAT-optional schools tend to have relatively homogeneous student bodies. Not requiring the SAT is a good marketing tool to attract students away from largely interchangeable competitors. It’s not the means, however, to bringing in a truly diverse and outstanding student body at a school like Amherst.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Raizel (rbahr10) // May 29, 2008 at 1:17 pm
No, I still think they should be required. While some may feel the test is unfair, I still think that it serves a purpose. And this is coming from someone whose math score was pretty awful.
2 Scott Smith (ssmith09) // May 30, 2008 at 7:33 pm
All due respect, Raizel, I can’t really see what that purpose is. I know an Amherst student who took the SATs somewhere upwards of ten times, improving his/her score until he/she got a 1600. I can’t speak to this student’s motivations, but it certainly says something about how the tests work. These standardized tests appear to measure of one’s test-taking ability and preparation. Test-taking is not one of the skills that Amherst tries so desperately to teach us. We can actually get out of here taking barely any final exams if we plan our schedules accordingly (see my transcript!) and clearly, the ability to take a test over and over is not going to help us get through Amherst. Our admission to Amherst really shouldn’t be contingent on our ability to test well.
Moreover, the ability to take the SAT over and over and therefore improve your score is contingent on privilege, especially the availability of time and money, in a way that Amherst’s current president must decry in his unending commitment to economic diversity in the student body. SAT prep courses are costly, to say nothing of the actual test fee itself ($20 per subject test [Amherst requires at least two], $45 for the main reasoning test). The admissions office can’t seriously say that they are deeply interested in the candidate’s ability to pay for and attend SAT prep courses or take the test. Need-blind admissions should mean need-blind, not “need-blind after you’ve managed to pay for your SATs”. College Board places an even higher burden on international students, imposing a $26 international processing fee “for students testing in countries other than the United States, U.S. territories, and Puerto Rico” and a $23 “additional surcharge for testing in India and Pakistan” (http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/sat/calenfees/fees.html). I have trouble seeing how test results so deeply governed by the relative privilege of applicants can possibly continue to be required for admission to Amherst.
3 tanderson10 (tanderson10) // May 31, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I agree wholeheartedly. I just want to add something else I heard from a Chinese student on campus: apparently China refuses to allow SAT testing to take place on the mainland. I spoke with a student here who had to fly to Hong Kong just to take the test and gain admission into U.S. colleges. I guess you could say that this is China’s problem and not the College Board’ss, but still, it’s a situation where SAT requirements create unnecessary barriers to college admission.
4 luke (lobrien10) // Jun 2, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Scott, I agree with many of the problems you mention in your post, but I don’t agree with your conclusion. Certainly, the SAT/ACT tests are measurements of test-taking ability and preparation, and this favors students of wealth and privilege. Prep courses, tutors, and months of studying can improve scores by hundreds of points, and not everyone has these advantages. However, we shouldn’t overstate the extent to which the SAT/ACT tests measure test-taking ability and preparation, only to conveniently overlook that they still provide at least some measure of natural ability – and that they are measures that, unlike GPA and class rank, are the same for students from all different high schools.
Granted, I haven’t done the research to back this up (this is a response to a blog post, after all), but I would be blown away if someone could credibly deny that SAT/ACT scores are at least in small part a measure of natural ability, intelligence, IQ, etc. Not everyone is capable of scoring of scoring a 1600 (or 2400, if we’re using the newfangled numbers). Maybe the difference between a 1200 and a 1400 or between a 1400 and a 1600 can be chalked up to test-taking ability and preparation, but the difference between an 800 and a 1600? I find it hard to believe that natural ability does not determine some sort of ceiling for SAT scores. Test-taking ability and preparation certainly play a part, but the same can probably be said of any sort of test. If someone spent months studying for an IQ test, s/he would probably improve her/his score (yes, I’m making an assumption here), but does that mean IQ scores are merely a function of test preparation?
In fact, most of the charges leveled against the SAT/ACT tests apply almost equally to high school GPAs and class ranks. It’s certainly possible to make it through Amherst without taking many tests, but I don’t think the same can be said of many high schools. Aren’t high school GPAs and class ranks largely measurements of test-taking skills and preparation? And doesn’t that favor students of wealth and privilege? A high school student who comes from a low-income family and has to work two jobs to help put food on the table might have little time to study, and as a result, his/her grades may not be on par with those of his/her more affluent classmates. Does this mean we should also completely disregard high school GPA and class rank?
Of course not. We simply need to take all of these measurements (SAT/ACT scores, GPA, class rank) with a grain of salt, not forgetting to take into account the circumstances of the individual student. A poverty-stricken, multiple-job-working student in a terrible school district with a 3.8 and a 2200 is infinitely more impressive than a wealthy, SAT-acing valedictorian from Long Island who has never had a job and isn’t involved in any extracurricular activities.
Admittedly, some people might argue that we profit little from adding yet another unfair measurement (SAT/ACT scores) on top of others (GPA, class rank). Here, however, is where I have to agree with Raizel. Flawed though they are, SAT/ACT scores serve a function that high school performance alone cannot: They are the only common measurement with which to compare students from different high schools.
Some schools are simply more difficult than others; only some schools offer AP and Honors courses; and grading systems vary incredibly. A valedictorian with a 106 average from a weaker high school may be less prepared for Amherst than a student who is twentieth in his class at a highly competitive high school. The only way to fairly compare two such students may be with SAT/ACT scores. Students with the means to extensively prepare are certainly at an advantage, but the playing field is somewhat leveled between the privileged students of an “easy” high school and the privileged students of a highly competitive high school, and likewise between the underprivileged students in “easy” and competitive high schools, respectively.
Few things in life are completely fair, and the SAT/ACT tests are no different. But that doesn’t make them useless. Though these tests come with their own set of inequalities, the same inequalities apply everywhere; everyone takes the same test. The SAT/ACT tests are “equally unequal” and “universally unfair” (if those terms make any sense).
One final thought: Though the SAT/ACT tests certainly favor students of wealth and privilege with the means to prepare themselves, they also reward hard-working, motivated students who put in the time to prepare. Consider two equally bright, equally privileged students who are both enrolled in Kaplan SAT courses and have the same private tutor. One chooses to do the bare minimum, shirking his SAT prep homework and only half-heartedly taking a few practice tests; he scores a 2200 on his SATs. The other student throws herself into her SAT prep, doing all of the homework and diving into as many practice tests as she can; she scores a perfect 2400. Clearly, the second student was rewarded for her hard work, which was only possible because the SAT tests preparation in addition to natural ability. Should that be ignored? Who is more likely to succeed at – and contribute to – Amherst: a motivated “smart” person or a lazy genius?
5 luke (lobrien10) // Jun 2, 2008 at 11:22 pm
To anyone who actually reads my entire post, I salute you. I am home and very bored.
6 cliebersohn09 (cliebersohn09) // Jun 3, 2008 at 8:22 pm
People often cite the fact that SAT scores are a worse predictor of college grades than high school grades are. However, when used in conjunction, they are a better predictor than either alone (an obvious insight to anyone who has taken stats!). When used along, they may be ridiculous, but in conjunction with the rest of an admissions package, they can be quite useful.
Moreover, do you think that Amherst really uses the SAT as stupidly as you suggest? Surely, if the college weighed extra-curricular talent, grades, letters or essays vastly out of proportion to the other factors, then the admissions decisions would be based on absurd things as well. And these other factors also go along highly with privilege, too - think of athletic ability, or instrument-playing, or the college essays. And don’t forget that colleges see how many times you take the SAT!
Even if you give reasons why the SAT is poor measure of the things you’re looking for in an applicant, you have to give much stronger reasons for it to be optional in admissions packages, unlike grades, letters or essays.
7 mwaskom09 (mwaskom09) // Jun 5, 2008 at 12:41 pm
No, we shouldn’t.
Just because the SAT is an imperfect measure does not mean that it is a worthless measure.
Yes, some people may have an “unfair” ability to retake the test 10 times and thus improve their score. I would bet, though, that the number of people who took the test more than twice–even at Amherst–is pretty small. It’s not like this is a five-minute online quiz. Also, I feel like Scott has to be exaggerating. Aren’t there around 5-6 testing dates per year? This person would have had to start early sophomore year and taken a test every date until their application was in. That seems unreasonable.
Furthermore, I agree that your score will probably improve on multiple retesting, but there have to be diminishing returns. You’ll benefit from added familiarity with the test to some degree, and you’ll probably be more relaxed if you’ve gone through it once or twice, but you’re just not going to linearly increase your score until you hit perfect after 10 tries. Unlimited multiple retests will help you reach your ultimate potential on the test, but that is still going to reflect your natural ability. You can receive most of the benefits of multiple testing by doing the free practice tests provided by the College Board. It might be harder to police yourself accordingly if you don’t have money on the line for an actual test or a private tutor, but I just don’t think the test itself is as naturally sensitive to privilege as people like to say.
8 mwaskom09 (mwaskom09) // Jun 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm
More importantly, though, I think that the SAT increases in relevance when you have made a commitment to diversity in the school. The admissions department is going to be quite familiar with Newton High, Greenwich High, New Treir, Exeter, the Menlo School, etc. They can make pretty good judgments about students from these schools from transcript and class rank.
If we want diversity though, it’s going to mean digging deeper and finding absolute standouts from a different group of high schools. Just going on class rank and transcript, then, is going to tell you nothing about the student. Being ranked first in a class that sends 30% or less of its graduates to college is meaningless in the context of Amherst admissions. Sure, some of these kids are going to be truly great, but there will be just as many who, impressive though their accomplishment may be, will simply not be up to Amherst standards. This is where the SAT is useful. The admissions department isn’t going to chose one kid over another when, all other things being equal, the first scored a 1450 and the second a 1430. However, if you’re looking at two kids from inner-city/geographically diverse high schools, the difference between a valedictorian with an 1100 and one with a 1500 is going to be informative. Yes, that first might have been able to score a 1200 if he had a private tutor or took the test 5 times, but he’s also not being compared with someone who had those resources either.
The SAT-optional schools tend to have relatively homogeneous student bodies. Not requiring the SAT is a good marketing tool to attract students away from largely interchangeable competitors. It’s not the means, however, to bringing in a truly diverse and outstanding student body at a school like Amherst.
You must log in to post a comment.