The SAT’s Benefits? None of the Above

Over the course of the past few decades, widespread concern over the decline in the quality of the American educational system has been evident. One of the main indicators of this deterioration has been the steady decrease in test scores on college entrance examinations. One such test, the College Board’s SAT assessment for high school students, has stirred up great debate as to its validity for determining individuals’ preparedness for further education. It is predicted that the results this year will be no different from past showings, as 1.5 million students will take the test and be a basis for studies comparable with past classes. When the results arrive in students’ mailboxes, subsequent elation or desolation is upon them. Peers and teachers inquire as to how they fared, family members call to ask what they got, and guidance counselors call them down to their office to discuss the “significance” of their scores. Stuck in the middle of all of this, most college-bound students today feel the need to eliminate these tests as a prerequisite for entrance, especially those who are denied acceptance to their favorite schools solely on the basis of this 3- or 4-digit number. The two-part test’s supposed purpose is to “provide colleges with an assessment of their ability to perform at a higher education level” and is one of several factors considered when determining whether or not to accept an applicant. Some feel that the idea of a test being a terrible degree by which to determine a candidate’s preparedness for college is a misconception; and claim that it successfully measures intelligence in a uniform, objective manner; thus being a very valid admissions tool. This, however, is far from the truth, as there are many critical flaws in “the test Americans love to hate.” The so-called “common national yardstick” does not live up to its title, and is not so much a matter of innate intelligence as it is a telltale sign of one’s accessibility to test-preparatory supplies. It does not test relevant skills and is primarily a measure of how fortunate one is socially. The SAT has many shortcomings accounting for its invalidity; it privileges the privileged, reflects a knack (or lack thereof) for test-taking, punishes those who think on a deeper level, is not persistently challenging, biases in terms of gender and ethnicity, and does not appropriately project its subjects’ future success.

Those who feel the SAT should remain influential argue that in the face of continued skepticism over the test’s significance, the national average math score of 519 is at a 35-year high and the 507 verbal score last reached this level in 1987. Lobbyists also argue that, despite all the inbuilt problems with testing in general (not excluding the SAT), the questions on the test are still not very demanding. Some even say that if a question on it poses a problem to someone, the challenge indicates the fact that they can hardly be called literate in the first place. This, an obvious overstatement, exaggerates the matter quite a bit, as time restrictions and test center surroundings factor into one’s performance. The mathematics involved, they add, is rudimentary material that should not be difficult for anyone taking the test. The requirement to know specific, detailed facts ceases to exist and the test never deals with dates or the memorization of formulas. Moving away from the SAT, in addition, would simply lead to grade-fixing corruption when it comes to a student’s GPA. Furthermore, proponents reason that even if patterns do illustrate that families better-off monetarily produce better students, financial status does not make for intelligence and success, the hard work that gets one there in the first place does. In the end, backers claim, students with poor SAT scores - if they ever are successful - require remedial education to attain the status they do.

On the contrary, the name SAT alone has incited passionate opposition; as what exactly the three initials represented has changed over the years. The contraction has stood for titles ranging from the Scholastic Assessment Test to the Scholastic Aptitude Test. The former seems to be something conjured up by the Department of Redundancy Department; while the latter of course insinuates more of an intelligence-based examination. The term “aptitude” alone causes problems over its legitimacy, as the test makers themselves even conceded that after practicing for the test, one could substantially raise their score; thus eradicating the soundness of the name in that it no longer measures native ability but rather what had been learned in preparation for college. An aptitude test is defined as “one that is insensitive to recent experience.” With preparatory programs such as Princeton Review and Kaplan, one cannot honestly claim that this is a just classification. Just like any other test, the SAT is indeed simply an assessment of previous experience. If it were an aptitude test, one would not be able to study for it; and of course this has been drastically disproved. Now, after scrupulous criticism, the test formerly known by acronyms is specified solely by the three letters. An inadvertent allusion to the test’s nature, this label perhaps hints at the fact that the SAT has become (in addition to an indication that the College Board is unable to aptly identify what the test determines) just that; an evaluation based not on one’s method of thinking, but rather on their preparation and societal standing. For this very reason, the designation “SAT I: Reasoning Test” is a definite malapropism. An evaluation of reasoning?, a test of aptitude? No. More like the Strategically Anticipated Test.

Studies administered and published by the College Board itself demonstrate the direct relationship between a student’s household income and their performance on the exam. This leaves college hopefuls who lack the resources necessary to adequately practice virtually helpless, as many review the test on multiple occasions prior to taking the real thing. Without the training most consider essential to one’s success on this type of an examination, those less fortunate arrive at the testing center unaware of even the assessment’s directions and basic structure, let alone its intricacies and the numerous helpful hints that their classmates use to their advantage. This very truth exhibits yet another flaw in the test itself, in that simple training can improve a student’s score tremendously, with some individuals’ increasing by 250 points from test to test. This “greater ability to fill in bubbles” allows one to plainly observe that the “assessment” lives up to its name; it is an examination that does not in fact test one’s ability to learn, but rather the degree to which they are acquainted with the test and how much they have practiced for it. In addition to the lack of funds for those less affluent, the lack of time plays a role in how much students who perform excellently in the classroom have for SAT preparatory courses and practice. Students should not be punished for the inability to afford expensive courses. Those at a disadvantage financially are deprived of an equal chance to be accepted into the college of their choice no matter how academically able, motivated, and successful they may be. To complicate this, the drawback also proves to be doubly unfair, as high scores on the assessment are often the only way to gain approval for many lucrative scholarship programs. This creates a false sense of security for their peers who do so, however - although one can “buy extra points,” they can’t buy their way through college.

Another well-documented flaw of the SAT is that it discriminates against specific groups. Certain questions on the test even carry differing cultural significances, which lead to an “incorrect” response. Gender and ethnic biases play a role in scores, as females as well as minorities – most noticeably African Americans and Hispanics – tend to perform worse on the test. College achievement – which is what the SAT is supposed to predict – typically contradicts the assessment’s outcome; as women – who statistically earn higher grades in college than males – score (on average) 40 points worse than men on their “College Boards.” Ironically, however, women end up clearly outnumbering men at the top of their graduating class. The test fails to foretell educational success for minorities; a piece of information which proves to be especially true after the individual’s freshman year, as no association between their university-level performance and their SAT results is noticeable, let alone in the work field after graduation. The exam does not accurately contribute to diversity, making it considerably more difficult to promote an ethnically varied student body. Furthermore, it has favored certain categories of students – well-off white individuals, particularly males consistently score well; the reality continues to be, however, that Asians score higher than whites, males higher than females, and the well-to-do better than the underprivileged. Black and Latino students - who do the poorest as a group - remain to be underrepresented on college campuses. In spite of the fact that minority student scores are improving, they aren’t rising at as fast as those of white and Asian students. The effect is an ever-widening gap that has become increasingly difficult to close annually. Nonetheless, until a better solution is reached, colleges will continue using the SAT as a benchmark in spite of opposition for the socioeconomic-, racial-, and gender-based favoritism in the test.

The claim by the College Board of the SAT being a “standardized” assessment of a particular student’s readiness for college is just that, a claim. One major reason why this assertion is not valid lies in the simple fact that a test with seven administrations each school year alone cannot possibly be considered similar, let alone exact. Difficulty – although the College Board denies it – varies from examination to examination, and recommendations and limitations set by the teen’s particular high school have an effect on when they take it. Testing environment, students say, also becomes an issue; as facilities that are deficient in testing materials and the like influence those taking the test there in a detrimental fashion. Test takers need only a note from a doctor specifying that they are learning-disabled to gain untimed status. In a 5-year period, the amount of individuals granted this “privilege” doubled, rising to 16,000 students. Schools, however, – suspicious of dishonesty – are reluctant to challenge a diagnosis of learning disability for fear of being sued. The verbal section of the SAT is in essence just a vocabulary test; it is not the evaluation of aptitude or of subject-area competency that it should be. But there’s more to college than just memorizing words. In one instance, a student from California received a 600 out of a possible 800 on the Verbal section of her SAT I. Later that year, she took the Writing SAT II “Achievement Test” – also administered by the College Board – and scored a “perfect” 800 on the exam. How, one might wonder, is this possible? The student obviously knows the language well enough to command it effectively, apparently even “flawlessly.” How, then, can she score 200 points worse on a test measuring less of her own personal skills but rather one determining to what extent she studied? The test should do what it does not; that is, assess more topics covered in the classroom. History, science, foreign language, advanced math, and English literature are all non-existent on the exam. How can we possibly expect today’s educators to cover so much material in so little class time? Instructors have a choice: to teach to the test or to lecture about subject areas not included on the SAT.

While taking the actual exam, analyzing each question does not assist a test taker as much as an understanding of the creators’ tendencies beforehand does. Citing statistical evidence, attacks directed at the exam state that those who look further into the proposed material are penalized accordingly; as the “’Deep Thinker’ Fallacy” hinders their performance. This inclination to approach material with intellectual depth only leads to incorrect responses, as the answer is usually more obvious than it may seem at first glance. The SAT, studies have shown, measures what matters least; a straightforward attempt at the answer rather than a comprehension of the topic at hand. Proven in a 1995 study with students at East Carolina University, those who took a mere “surface” approach to the material (that is, they did as little as possible to memorize what they needed) and those who took an “achieving” approach (where relative performance is of greater importance than learning) scored better on the test than individuals who chose the “deep” approach (a desire to connect previous knowledge with the information and truly comprehend what has been learned); showing no correlation whatsoever with the latter style. The test often contains what are referred to as “true-false” questions, which are true on one level – that which is easily perceptible to a mediocre thinker – but false on another, thus confusing those who think in a more profound manner. This reduces the quality of students’ thinking, and their awareness that a particular assessment will be graded causes them to rush and simply look for the solution, not looking into the question at all. One who cuts corners to raise a mark on a scored examination decreases their desire to complete challenging tasks, a propensity which also makes for higher GPAs at the hands of reduced exploration. With a decline in their interest for learning itself, students often find themselves obsessive over the result rather than the manner in which they arrived at it. This disposition may continue in and beyond college, as many students begin to feel that the purpose of education is to get “A”’s.

Due to these facts, SAT scores should, in addition, not be by any means a foundation upon which college admissions officers base the applicant’s overall potential. Utilizing a single number as a gauge for any person’s credibility – whether it is in regard to the SAT or not – is an unjust practice based on an isolated event. Tests, at best, will predict future tests. Slight improvements in SAT scores may totally change the possibility of a candidate being accepted, as mere 10-point swings affecting decisions leads to misuse of the test. “Rough justice” plays a role in the college application process; as the volume of candidates received each year by a particular college costs a large amount of money. Using tests such as the SAT for admissions acts as a faster, cheaper, and easier way for universities that hear from tens of thousands of applicants to continue reducing each one to a numerical formula, rather than weighing each as an individual. It allows college admissions officers to eliminate contenders and arbitrarily shut out qualified students from the best colleges and universities in the nation. For this very reason, institutions should be very careful when making such a decision. This group reasons that universities ought to instead look at aspirants in a wide-ranging, holistic manner. Many strongly believe that colleges need to adjust their selection methods to more fairly reflect those academic characteristics and qualities of the students who apply; that is: learning, creativity, integrity, motivation, commitment to society and other qualities that would make an applicant both a successful student and a contributor to the life of the school and society. The scores do not always correlate with the individual’s academic accomplishments in the classroom, as a junior enrolled in strictly Advanced Placement – another testing service run by the College Board – courses may do very well on the accompanying exams and maintain an exceptional GPA throughout their high school career, yet be denied entrance into their “dream school” simply because their SAT scores were “too low.” Hence, the company’s slogan, “The College Board: Expanding College Opportunity,” is contradictory in that the Board’s SAT limits the number of university prospects instead of enlarging it. One who works hard throughout of all four years of their high school experience is faulted on the basis of one number rather than a combination of many, more significant ones. Success in a university setting is a result of just how much time a student is willing to put in to their studies, not a measure of how well they take tests. Thus, the test is also a one-time evaluation instead of an accumulated indication of a student’s didactic attainment. SAT results proved to be worthless, in that using them as a bellwether for future college success was an impractical, useless strategy. The scores can only account for 11.9% of the first-year college grades nationwide and should, as a result, be declared null and void. Possibilities include a transition to using SAT II subject-specific achievement tests or overall high school GPAs as alternatives. Various institutions of higher learning, however, are making attempts toward eliminating this; as over three-hundred colleges no longer require prospective students to include an SAT score on their application;, including well-known colleges such as the University of Texas and the University of Connecticut, while others such as the prestigious Brown University are in the process of attempting to do so.