Students around the country are sharpening their pencils and getting ready for another round of testing as colleges are reinstating the SATs.
In the United States, students spend more than five hours annually taking standardized tests and more than 80 hours preparing. The incredible amount of time and resources students put into these tests begs a question: are we actually measuring what matters?
The SAT has outgrown its usefulness. It should not be the main indicator of college preparedness.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, SAT scores were an essential component of every college application, according to Higher Ed Dive.
However, many colleges transitioned to a more comprehensive admissions approach during the pandemic and gave other academic achievements and extracurriculars priority over test results.
This approach was more lenient and more equitable. It allowed students the opportunity to explore their interests and talents beyond the confines of standardized testing. It encouraged them to engage in extracurricular activities and pursue subjects of personal interest.
Now, a few Ivies and other well-known colleges such as University of Texas are reinstating standardized tests. While UW-Madison is still test-optional for the upcoming fall and spring applicants, the shift back toward standardized testing may indicate a returning to pre-pandemic standards.
Reinstatement poses new problems for applicants. When only a handful of top universities reinstate the SATs, it adds unnecessary complexity to the college admissions process. Students are left feeling confused and anxious because they are left with little choice but to make a confusing decision about whether or not to take the test, according to Fox. Additionally, reinstating standardized testing means students would have to prioritize tests above their extracurricular interests, which would lead to a restricted educational experience that wouldn't support their passions and holistic growth.
Advocates of standardized testing argue test scores offer colleges an objective measurement of student achievement during the admission process. In theory, if all students take the same test, it is possible to compare every applicant’s academic performance. The test also facilitates student learning through measurable objectives and explicit expectations such as specific score targets to get into top-tier colleges.
But in practice, it's not that simple.
Standardized tests are not truly objective because they fail to consider diversity and opportunity, according to The New York Times. Certain student groups, such as those who are non-native English speakers, may unintentionally be at a disadvantage as a result of these assessments.
Such kind of test-taking techniques cannot be given precedence over critical thinking ability and originality in standardized assessments. Depending only on test-taking techniques ignores critical forms of intelligence that are necessary for success in the real world, such as creativity, emotional intelligence, and practical skills. A student who performs well on standardized math tests could still find it difficult to apply these skills in situations where they need to come up with original solutions.
Low-income students are also disadvantaged by standardized testing. Numerous obstacles stand in their way, including restricted access to resources, tutoring and unaffordable textbooks. According to CNBC, there’s a positive correlation between wealth and higher test scores; wealthier students can afford to pay for repeated attempts at standardized tests until they receive the score they want.
It’s clear these tests create a restricted and inequitable evaluation of students' skills.
Additionally, teachers who prioritize test preparation over meaningful learning experiences may adopt "teaching to the test" approaches as a result of the pressure to have their students score well, according to the English Plus Podcast. This takes away from students' opportunities for real-world learning and critical thinking in favor of rote memorization and exam-taking techniques.
There are other ways to measure a student’s college preparedness. One clear example of a comprehensive measure of a student's intellectual skills is the change in education policy from the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The ESSA gives states greater freedom to create their own educational systems while enhancing student results overall. This change encourages states to create their own accountability frameworks and use metrics other than test results to assess student competency, like graduation rates, student growth and school atmosphere.
U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona wrote in a November letter to chief state school officers that states should abandon traditional fill-in-the-bubble and short response tests and instead focus on developing innovative assessments. He encouraged states to create more comprehensive and meaningful evaluations of student learning.
“Our collective approach to assessment has not always met that mark,” Cardona wrote.
We can build a fair educational system and an inclusive learning environment that considers factors such as economic disparity, diversity and different learning styles. This is not the system built by relying on standardized testing.
Examining substitute techniques such as performance-based evaluations would result in a more thorough and fair assessment of student performance. It's time to guarantee every student an equal chance at success by leveling the playing field.
Riddhi Devarhubli is a freshman studying data science and computer science. Do you agree colleges should stop requiring standardized test scores on their applications? Send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
