ACT

I’m talking about those who decide to be nasty, mean, clique oriented in a grown up job. You’re an adult.

As we emerge from the pandemic era, I argue that colleges should reinstate the SAT and ACT as essential components of the admissions process. This is not a step backwards but a move towards ensuring fairness and maintaining high academic standards in college admissions.

The initial shift to test-optional policies was a necessary response to the challenges posed by COVID-19. However, as we adapt to the new normal, with digital formats making standardized tests more accessible, it's time to reevaluate these policies.

Consider the case of a student from a competitive Bay Area school with a near-perfect SAT score and high GPA, rejected from 16 out of 18 colleges. This situation exemplifies potential imbalances in the current admissions system. Had the UCs not adopted a test-blind policy, this student might have had different outcomes, highlighting the need for a more balanced approach to admissions.

Standardized testing offers a relatively equitable way to evaluate applicants, especially when considering socioeconomic status. A student from a low-income background scoring well on these tests demonstrates remarkable achievement, considering the disparities in educational resources. While high schools vary significantly in grading standards, SAT and ACT scores provide a more consistent measure of academic potential. Khan Academy and other resources have democratized test preparation, making success on these exams more accessible to all students.

MIT's reinstatement of standardized testing, citing its utility in identifying talented students from low-income areas, reinforces this point. Standardized tests, while not perfect, are a valuable tool in recognizing academic potential across diverse backgrounds.

It’s also important to address the misconception that only naturally gifted students can excel in standardized tests. With dedication and accessible resources, achieving a high score is possible for a broad range of students. This challenges the narrative that standardized tests are unfair barriers to college admissions.

The shift towards test-optional policies, while well-intentioned, may not always align with the interests of prospective students. Some colleges might use these policies to inflate average SAT/ACT scores or reduce acceptance rates, metrics that don’t necessarily reflect the quality of education or the student body's diversity.

In advocating for the return of standardized testing, I am not dismissing other aspects of a student's application. Essays, extracurricular activities, and other holistic factors are crucial. However, these elements can be subjective and influenced by socioeconomic factors. Standardized tests can help balance this by providing a more objective measure of academic ability.

To conclude, reinstating SAT/ACT requirements, while taking into account the socioeconomic context of applicants, can lead to a more fair and academically rigorous admissions process. This approach can ensure that diversity and high academic standards coexist, fostering a truly meritocratic system in college admissions.

For more insights into this topic, here's an article about Stanley Zhong's experience:

GAZETTE: Some experts say the SAT test has become a sort of “wealth test.” What’s your take on this?

DEMING: I think that’s a little bit misleading. And the reason is that everything that matters in college admissions is related to wealth, including the SATs. I think when people call it a wealth test, they mean to delegitimize it as a measure of who can succeed in school. And the reality is that the SAT test does predict success in college. The SAT does capture something about whether you’re ready to do college level work.

I would urge us to create conditions under which there are more low- and middle-income students who can do well on the test, not to get rid of the test. Getting rid of the test doesn’t make the disparity go away. It just makes it invisible in the eyes of the public. For me, that’s the wrong direction.

Also, if you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.

My worry is that if we get rid of the SAT, you’re getting rid of the only way that a low-income student who’s academically talented has to distinguish themselves. Getting rid of the SAT means those people don’t have the opportunity to be noticed. I don’t think the SAT is perfect, but I think the problem isn’t the test. The problem is everything that happens before the test.

Many schools in the US like the UC system are switching to test optional policies. They claim they are doing this because these tests are biased against minority students, however due to COVID many testing sites were closed.

Originally, from what I understand, the UC system started using standardized tests in 1968 because there were students (like Jumaane Williams, who claims he was able to get an education precisely because he had the test scores) who didn’t have good grades but had academic potential.

By putting a higher emphasis on grades, which vary from school to school, this may end up hurting students from low income areas more, as high income schools tend to have more grade inflation:

To me, it seems like standardized tests are the best way to control for many of these differences because everyone gets the same (or at least a similar) test. By switching to test-optional policies, many Asian students could be disadvantaged.

Note that I am not arguing that standardized tests should be the only factor in admissions, just that it can set a minimum for entry at many schools as it is a good predictor of college success, similar to the GRE.

Many students, like myself, could care less about test prep and see it as a waste of time. Yet I was still able to get a good (not great, ~2200) score and get into a great undergraduate school and almost every graduate program.

Things that will change my view include (but are not limited to)

• Evidence that standardized tests are not a good measure of college success

• Arguments that standardized tests do more harm than good

• Better alternatives that predict college success

They argue it helps identify underprivileged students who have high aptitude. Also that their curriculum cannot be completed without a strong understanding of mathematics.