admin 
This was written in response to Jason Qiu’s well-written and well-researched article, “The Dirty Truth Behind Standardized Testing.” While I understand his reasons for criticizing standardized testing, there were some disadvantages that I thought were inherent to our educational system rather than to standardized testing.
Standardized tests are a necessary evil in need of reform. Indeed, disadvantaged students have poorer access to standardized test preparation materials. Indeed, the ACT or the SAT may not be an accurate representation of a student’s normal academic performance. And indeed, it is prone to cheating. However, for several reasons, eliminating standardized tests would be a terrible idea. Reform is a much more viable option.
Jason’s first contention in his Op-Ed is that standardized tests favor certain groups over others because of lack of access to SAT/ACT prep. While this is statistically supported, we shouldn’t place the blame on the tests itself. Rather, it is a manifestation of other social issues. For example, because of the property tax-funded public education system, poor students often cannot study in schools with access to the best resources. Even if we moved to a system in which there would be no standardized testing, the underprivileged would still be underprivileged. In the absence of a viable alternative, the problem might even be worse without standardized tests: currently, top students from underprivileged backgrounds can still gain access to good colleges by performing well on standardized tests which validate their performance in school. Without standardized testing, schools will most likely look to factors like the reputation of a student’s high school, which is largely correlated with economic wealth. Even if they look at holistic factors, these are similarly prone to manipulation by means of money.
The second contention concerns a friend who received an unexpectedly low standardized test score. We Sharks often complain of the grade deflation at SMIC. Too often I hear, “How do these people at So-and-So High School get straight A’s but only a 1400 on their SAT?” However, we shouldn’t forget that in the absence of standardized test scores, many of us here are unable to validate our academic performances. Indeed, some people are intelligent but simply bad at test-taking. But I think colleges understand that not everyone is good at taking tests, which is why at every presentation from a college representative, the college touts their holistic admissions process (which means they consider applicants in a broad context). He then points out the frequent errors that SAT makes. Indeed, ACT and the College Board often find out that they’ve made mistakes. But students who perform unexpectedly badly have the option of ordering a Multiple-Choice Hand Score Verification from the SAT ($55) or the ACT Score Verification Service ($50). If an error is found, the fee will be refunded and the scores will be adjusted. And unlike national testing systems in other educational systems, like that of China, at least students have the opportunity to take the test several times (of course, subject to financial constraints).
At the same time, I agree with Jason on the importance of the “portfolio”—a compilation of students’ academic performance and extracurricular activities. I agree on the importance of holistic admissions practices. It’s exactly what the college application process is—the Common Application, for example, asks students for their grades, honors, activities, a personal statement, and school-specific essays to glean more about a student’s personality beyond an academic setting. In particular, the Coalition Application uses a “locker” system which is very similar to what Jason proposes—a place to document a student’s life from grade 9 to 12. But do these gilded proposals do anything to resolve the issues? Or do they further exacerbate them? It’s hard to say. How would an underprivileged student have time to participate in extracurricular activities or an internship or research when s/he is busy helping his or her family earn money? How would such a student fund himself for tickets to national or international competitions? Another issue is the emergence of expensive “agents” or college application consultants who polish applications. I know of numerous students at SMIC who spend high multiples of our annual tuition hiring such consultants. Does this not widen the gap, just like the ACT or the SAT? The only difference is that one is a lot more expensive. Whenever there is a system, there will be an industry centered around beating the system.
Because other forms of evaluating students are often even more unfair, I believe that standardized testing is in need of reform, not elimination. And I think initiatives like Khan Academy’s completely free, College Board-supported SAT prep program are showing some success, with Khan Academy students seeing a 115-point increase from the 1520-scale PSAT/NMSQT to the 1600-scale SAT, compared to increases of only 60 points for non-users.
Featured image These standardized test answer cards are bad, but they probably aren’t the worst courtesy of biologycorner via Flickr
Return to the Op-Ed “The Dirty Truth Behind Standardized Testing” written by Jason Qiu that this editorial responds to
Thank you Wesley for your well-crafted article. I wholeheartedly agree that wealth has emerged as the new deterministic factor for a student’s success in modern times. As aforementioned, this pattern can be shown in expensive test prep classes and superficial ‘agents’ who can polish a student’s application. And, perhaps completely banning standardized testing would be somewhat unreasonable and impossible. However, students… No.. People, in general, should not just perceive all of the trends of the world as good and mindlessly follow them. People should question everything and discover new solutions for loopholes. Khan Academy is a perfect example for an action to solve the issue of standardized testing favoring certain groups of people. More should follow Khan’s footsteps. All in all, thank you for your eloquent piece and thank you for raising awareness of another long-accepted yet problematic ideal: The education system itself.
In my opinion, a vital perspective on the nature of standardized testing is not addressed in this debate. In AP Psychology, we recently learned about intelligence. Regarding intelligence testing, there are two types of tests: achievement tests, which tests the information you have learned, and aptitude tests, which predict your ability on future tasks. School exams are achievement tests, and the SAT is an aptitude test. I believe that the SAT is being increasingly misunderstood as an achievement test, which is why many students are under the pressure to cram and take countless mock tests as if they were studying for school exams when they serve different purposes.
I understand the argument about the friend with high grades who gets a low SAT score. However, I would like to point out that it is only ONE case, and we cannot continue to use a single, personal example to generalize for the whole population. Furthermore, I know people who have very poor academic grades, but high scores on the SAT. Individual situations all stand out, and may not represent the overall link between SAT scores and academic performance in university for most people. There is generally assumed to be a positive correlation between good academic grades and a good SAT score, but it does not mean good grades guarantee a good SAT/ACT score. (I acknowledge the limitations to my argument because of the ambiguity of the scoring procedure, but my main purpose is to propose a different view on the topic).
I strongly agree with Wesley that the problem is in the system itself. Colleges should place more importance on a student’s overall portfolio than a single exam. But I think that we should widen our perspective. Especially here in Asia, many people believe that a person’s abilities and worth are determined by their scores. The fault lies our increasingly result-oriented social perspective, in which people all around the world are gradually placing more importance on SAT and ACT grades above any other measure of ability. The same ideal applies to the increased focus on academic grades. Is a person who gets good grades absolutely certain to become a more successful individual in their future? (More research needed here).
I believe that many colleges are being aware of these problems and changing how they view potential students as a result. More and more universities are promoting a “holistic approach” to applications, and there a few who do not require the submission of SAT or ACT scores. I think that the education system is changing, albeit slowly, in response to criticism on how students are judged. In this case, we should not ignore the increasing number of cases of students with high scores who don’t always get into colleges that they apply to.
This response is based on my general knowledge, and I acknowledge my lack of credibility and sources. I understand that there are also many other factors to consider, such as the corporatist interests of Collegeboard and whether or not all students have equal opportunities for intellectual enrichment. But I think other than attacking the exams for “grading incorrectly” when someone with good grades gets a low score, we have to think about how universities are changing their assessment of students and how we should challenge social attitudes towards such tests.