Is Standardized Testing Good or Bad?

James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal ^ | March 14, 2025 | George Leef

[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.

[GOPJ]

When colleges and universities discovered they could admit thousands more 'students' if they weren't so "picky" they opened the doors to people who couldn't read and had no business wasting their money on going to college.

It was always greed, government backed loans, and the desire to expand their operations. Sick and twisted and gave us inferior 'professors' too.

[mak5]

I know the theory is that high school grades are the best predictor of college success, but how can you compare a student from an exclusive, accomplished school to one from a mill that passes people through to just get rid of them? Standardized tests are a necessity as the only way to directly compare candidates for admission.

[libertylover]

That’s a good comment. I, myself, did not do well on the SAT testing. But I’m no dummy, I excelled in the Air Force aptitude testing before enlistment, later earned a degree in Computer Science, and worked successfully in the aerospace industry where we had engineers from all over the place.

The notion that the tests discriminate against blacks is utter nonsense.

I’m not too sure I agree with your percentages, but I agree that all of those things should be a factor. And, uh, if one is applying to say, Columbia, is church activity considered a plus, or a minus?

[HamiltonJay]

Like anything for the majority of the bell curve, a properly created and administered standardized test is fine...

However, when you get outside the majority of the curve things like this fall down.

If I take a child who has dyslexia, or language processing issues, or some other similar issue, and I hand them a standardized test and give them 2 hours or whatever to do it, they are likely going to fail it miserably, or likely get a score far lower than their actual logical abilities.

[Myrddin]

I often wonder what constitutes "reading at grade level". I was subjected to testing (individually) in 2nd grade. I didn't understand the point and became bored with the process. I terminated it by intentionally not complying with a question about what "chilly" means. The tester spoke the word, so I had the option of chilly(cold) or chili(a food) or chile(a pepper) or Chile(a country). I knew all the alternatives, but I was just done with the badgering. I later heard that I was reading at 7th grade level. I suspect I could have improved that if the intent of the testing had been communicated so I didn't intentionally stop the process.

[KarlInOhio]

Opponents of testing claim that the tests are unfair to minority students and help perpetuate the socioeconomic supremacy of affluent whites

The left can't look at the sewer they've turned public schools into. Got to blame the test. Then they find a student who, by some miracle, was able to halfway learn the material and put him into an Ivy League school to be dragged through to get a grievance studies degree rather than going to a mid-tier state college and earn a STEM degree that will get him a good job.

[Myrddin]

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).*

An astute observation. My company has been pushing DEI stuff into the annual training. The way to successfully complete the test is to cobble up the stupidest possible answer...success. Just because you can score a perfect result on their test doesn't not imply that you embrace or agree with the content of the training/testing. That principle applies to dealing with leftist teaching assistants and professors in college. You have to "play the game" to survive the gauntlet, but you are not required to adopt that nonsense as your own position.

[metmom]

Yes. She also discovered that throwing a few PC catch phrases in like *heteronormative* would be almost a guarantee of a good grade.

[A_perfect_lady]

Yes, how well kids do on tests often has to do with how interested they are in cooperating. LOL... definitely!

[Scrambler Bob]

Is Standardized Testing Good or Bad?
= = =

Yes.

[Myrddin]

Yes. She also discovered that throwing a few PC catch phrases in like *heteronormative* would be almost a guarantee of a good grade.

Yes. The pretense that you have agreed with the premise. The "stuff" that really annoyed me was the insistence on claiming "unconscious bias". I did have one training course that was actually enlightening. The discussion in the difference between dealing with a customer from a "high context" culture and a "low context" culture. Japanese culture was used as an example of "high context" and Germans as "low context". The interaction style is very different. As a software engineer accustomed to writing device drivers for new hardware, I'm a low context person. Everything needs to be explicit. The machine does exactly what it is told. You get nothing for free. Every possibility must be covered. A "high context" culture is bathed in standard expectations of behavior. It isn't necessary to spell out all the details explicitly. You must have a strong familiarity with the "context" to function competently in the environment.