Posted on 03/14/2025 6:09:32 AM PDT by karpov
Should colleges and universities—especially those regarded as elite—use the scores students earned on standardized tests in making admissions decisions? That has been a heated subject of debate for several decades. Opponents of testing claim that the tests are unfair to minority students and help perpetuate the socioeconomic supremacy of affluent whites, while defenders argue that standardized tests help schools distinguish between students who are capable of doing the level of work required and those who aren’t.
Which side is right? Does it really matter?
In his new book, Higher Admissions: The Rise, Decline, and Return of Standardized Testing, Nicholas Lemann weighs in on that debate. He is dean, emeritus, at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and the author of several books, among them his history of the SAT, The Big Test.
Lemann’s new book does not give a conclusive answer to the question posed in my title, but he clearly leans toward the view, common among those on the left, that standardized testing helps to solidify America’s inequities. I don’t find this very persuasive, as Lemann writes with admiration for “progressives” and ignores those who disagree with them.
(Excerpt) Read more at jamesgmartin.center ...
“Should colleges and universities—especially those regarded as elite—use the scores students earned on standardized tests in making admissions decisions?”
Actually, they should ONLY use those scores, at least if they really do care about actually educating people.
Only if you're dumb.
They may be imperfect, but they’re the best tool we have.
It’s no kindness to place minorities (or anyone) in colleges above (or below) their capability and preparation levels.
Should be 50% test scores, 25% grades and classes taken, and 25 % activities (work, sports, extra-curricular, social interaction (church, charity, etc))
Some people just do not test well, but you can see their capabilities and perserverance in their day to day work.
Testing is a good thing. People claim schools spend too much time teaching to the test. Isn’t that the point. They also show where the deficiencies are in the curriculum. The information that comes back is actually quite interesting.
College is an optional education. It is not for everyone. Even for those for whom it is a good option, there are different difficulty levels of colleges that are known but not official.
Standardized tests is a fair way to evaluate the actual knowledge and problem solving abilities of potential students. Based on results, a student is better off understanding which tier of school is the best match. One can be an engineer and go to, say, LSU or could go to MIT. A student needs this information along with the universities so they select and are selected by the best match school.
Essays, extra-circular activities, letters of recommendations, hardships, meh. What do you know and can you reason, problem solve, and critically think are what should be valuable in assessing fitness for college.
That’s a halfway measure. No one seems to be measuring the output. Back in 1965 when I graduated, I had to take the Graduate Record Exam in my major (Econ) even if I was not going to grad school. Everyone had to do the same thing in their major. If you didn’t score in the upper 70th percentile, you got an “attendance” diploma rather than a degree. Think of it as all the Econ majors in the US as a manhole cover. In the center is a juice glass, which represents those Econ majors who are going to grad school and are taking the GRE in Econ. We had to score in the top 70th percentile of “the juice glass” to get a degree. My class had 23 Econ majors and the worst score on the GRE was the 90th percentile and 18 of us went on to grad school.
I wonder how many universities have the stones to do the same measure of their programs?
First, they need to weed the number of universities/colleges down by about 40-50%.
Then we can talk about admissions requirements.
College graduates today couldn’t pass most high school requirements from 120 years ago.
The great thing about standards is that there are so many to pick from.
“.... Opponents of testing claim that the tests are unfair to minority students and help perpetuate the socioeconomic supremacy of affluent whites, ...”
Yet Asians and Africans who come here do fine on those tests! Perhaps it more to do with applying oneself then skin color.
Don’t see the point of the last 25% as it’s more New Age thinking than anything resembling academic excellence.
For school performance, that COULD work, but only if there were a way to normalize the schools so, for example, someone acing Dallas Integrated school District isn’t treated equal or better than someone acing a school district where kids actually learn something. But then how do you ‘normalize’ those factors? Only one way - testing, in some way. Otherwise, it promotes crappy students.
<sarc></sarc>
A student should be able to easily pass a literacy test.
The problem with standardized testing and even SATs is that they’ve gone woke.
Many years ago, probably 20 now that I think about it, my oldest was taking practice tests from one of these test prep books. She did about 3-4 of the and kept getting about the same score, a very good one at that.
Suddenly she comes to me and says, *They don’t want the correct answer. They want the POLITICALLY CORRECT answer! I’m taking another test (practice).*
She boosted her score by 100 points, consistently. By the time she got done taking the final SAT, IIRC her score was in the very low 1500’s, or upper 1400’s.
My son does not test well, but give him a problem and space to figure it out without being constrained by *protocol*, and he will come up with a creative, ingenious solution that people say *You can’t do that, it won’t work.* But it does and very well.
“...He is dean, emeritus, at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism ...”
No need to read further after reading the above. This clown is in the “math is hard” class of clowns.
So you see no value in someone having a part time job or doing anything else beyond classes and testing in HS while maintaining good grades at the same time?
I don’t necessarily agree with the exact percentages you propose, but I do agree with your general point.
I once worked in the maintenance department of a large paper mill and was friends with a guy on the machine crew. He was a very clever backyard tinkerer. He liked building steam engines and the like from scratch, one time bringing in a Sterling engine he built mostly from old beer cans and cut up spray bottles. I was amazed how well it ran! Anyway, I once asked him why he never went into maintenance, and he told me that he couldn’t pass the testing. A real shame it was, as he was probably more mechanically inclined than most of the shop.
And conversely, I’m sure that there are folks who will test well but maybe have a real lack of ambition.
Sadly, the standardized tests were supposed to be a review pf the material that a student learns prior to high school graduation. Too bad the SAT and ACT don’t ask questions about balancing a checkbook or starting a lawn mower.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.