The SAT should be “abandoned and replaced,” argues Leon Botstein, former president of Bard, in Time.
Look at “the complex portrait” of college applicants’ lives rather than their test scores, writes Jennifer Finney Boylan in the New York Times.
The test measures only SAT-taking skills, adds Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker.
Actually, the SAT predicts success in college “relatively well,” write David Z. Hambrick and Christopher Chabris, both psychology professors, in Slate. It takes a few hours to administer and, unlike complex portraits, it can be scored in an objective way.
SAT scores correlate very highly with IQ scores, they write. Harvard’s Howard Gardner, known for his theory of multiple intelligences, called the SAT and other measures “thinly disguised” intelligence tests.
A popular anti-SAT argument is that the test measures socioeconomic status rather than cognitive skill.
Boylan argued in her Times article that the SAT “favors the rich, who can afford preparatory crash courses” like those offered by Kaplan and the Princeton Review. Leon Botstein claimed in his Time article that “the only persistent statistical result from the SAT is the correlation between high income and high test scores.” And according to a Washington Post Wonkblog infographic (which is really more of a disinfographic) “your SAT score says more about your parents than about you.”
Test prep doesn’t make a big difference, write Hambrick and Chabris. And research shows a significant but “not huge” correlation between socioeconomic status and test scores. Plenty of low-income kids score well.
. . .as it was originally designed to do, the SAT in fact goes a long way toward leveling the playing field, giving students an opportunity to distinguish themselves regardless of their background. Scoring well on the SAT may in fact be the only such opportunity for students who graduate from public high schools that are regarded by college admissions offices as academically weak.
“One person’s obstacle is another person’s springboard,” Dawn Harris Sherling wrote in response to Kolbert.
I am the daughter of a single, immigrant father who never attended college, and a good SAT score was one of the achievements that catapulted me into my state’s flagship university and, from there, on to medical school. Flawed though it is, the SAT afforded me, as it has thousands of others, a way to prove that a poor, public-school kid who never had any test prep can do just as well as, if not better than, her better-off peers.
Botstein advocates adjusting high school GPA “to account for the curriculum and academic programs in the high school from which a student graduates” and abandoning the SAT, note Hambrick and Chabris. “A given high school GPA would be adjusted down for a poor, public-school kid, and adjusted up for a rich, private-school kid.”
A commenter responds: “The idea that standardized tests and ‘general intelligence’ are meaningless is wishful thinking. People find it cruel that something essentially beyond your control—intrinsic intelligence—could matter so much. But it does.”
Another commenter writes: “It’s like trying to argue that looks are meaningless. Yeah, it sucks for most of us, but doesn’t mean it’s not true.”