Being a test prep coach doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with the current education system, that I think testing is the best option for measurement, or that I believe college access is fair. But what it has meant for me is a responsibility to teach students how to maximize their circumstance and “beat the system” so to speak. I’m not only in the environment of education, but I’m also in the lane of taking advantage of score criteria to save families money in this expensive world of college. The moral victory is knowing students can learn study habits that translate to learning anything and helping them develop skills that can be applied elsewhere on their life-long journey of learning.
For starters, given the current system students can’t do much at this time to avoid standardized tests altogether. Whether we agree with their benefit or not, it’s best to make the most of what we can control.
I go back and forth on testing’s value as a whole, which is tough because I coach students to take standardized tests for a living.
Let’s start the discussion with what they’re intended to do and what they have done effectively thus far:
Test scores do a fine job of reflecting knowledge of content, efficiency of time management, execution of strategy and tactics, as well as mental and emotional command.
Because the ACT/SAT are norm referenced - other people don’t impact the score distribution. This helps give context to grades which are not an equal measurement tool for a variety of reasons. For example, in the 90’s a B average represented about 50% of students . In the 2010’s an A average represented about 50% of students. This shows there’s a clear grade inflation occurring, thus making a greater argument for a standardized metric.
Another benefit is that the tests are engineered to create the same distribution every time and have done so successfully for many decades. Otherwise they would hold no value and not have been utilized for this long.
Other arguments I’ve seen for standardized testing:
It helps level the playing field.
Counters grade subjectivity and inflation.
There’s evidence that it’s an accurate predictor of performance at the next level.
Helps verify appropriate course placement.
Helps identify achievement gaps.
Studies show testing does NOT WORSEN disparity for underrepresented applicants.
Better predictor for 1st year success, retention, and graduation than GPA.
There is a risk that eliminating the test may make inequities worse.
It removes weight on GPA which is not standardized.
Some may wonder, if they’re so beneficial why are schools starting to move to test optional or consider removing standardized tests as a requirement altogether? The reality is despite the large amount of press, these schools are few and far between.
Test optional is not common for national (big) schools and selective schools. You’ll find that it’s present in schools that are primarily liberal arts, have open enrollment, technical colleges, trade schools etc. Also, it doesn’t actually make it easier to get in as more weight will be placed on other factors.
Recently University of California was in the news outlining that they’ll move to test optional, to no test required, to creating their own test. In their eyes this is progressive and creates more equity, but it’s hard to really say when there still has to be something to separate applicants. I can’t blame them for trying to distinguish themselves in a competitive landscape such as college.
I acknowledge that the system is broken. There are indeed many valid arguments against standardized testing and I agree that the system can better. That said, standardized tests function pretty well within this broken system.
At the end of the day, the education system as a whole and the colleges will have to create as much equality and useful resources as they can to serve what I’d like to think is their “purpose”. In the mean time, making the most of the situation is the best we can do.