It's Saturday morning. You're about to go take the dreaded SAT again, and know you need to raise your score by a couple hundred points or so to even be considered by that elite liberal arts college you've had your eye on. Are you stressed out? That's probably an understatement.
While most college students can remember going through this experience before, it may become a thing of the past for California students that have their eyes on a University of California (UC) school. UC President Richard Atkinson announced his decision to recommend dropping the SAT I from admissions criteria at each of UC's campuses last week, raising questions on all sides of the issue.
"They don't show the real intellectual ability of a student," an engineering graduate student said of the SATs. The student, who wished to remain unnamed, emphasized that the SAT I focused more on "IQ or general knowledge" than anything practical. "It shows more intelligence than understanding," he said.
According to the Associated Press, while Atkinson views the SAT I as "distorting educational priorities and practices," his recommendation does not call for the elimination of SAT II (subject test) requirements. These subject tests are considered to be more exact indicators of a student's prowess in a specific academic field.
Others share Atkinson's views. While the engineering graduate student wasn't satisfied with the breadth of the SAT I, he believed that the subject tests provide a reasonable measure of capability in a particular field. "[SAT IIs] show your ability...[and] how much you understand a subject," he said.
The problem with removing the SAT I from consideration in college applications is that more of the weight in admissions decisions will fall on high school transcripts, which are traditionally a much more subjective indicator of academic ability. For instance, a student receiving an 'A' at one school may have gotten a 'C' at another for the exact same work, depending on the institutions' grading standards. Critics of those urging college admissions personnel to ignore SAT I results often point to this redeeming aspect of the test: it levels the playing field.
"SATs give students a chance to prove themselves," sophomore Seher Hussain said. Hussain, an international student whose second language is English, feels that the SATs provide a fair chance to people who wouldn't normally be easily compared to other applicants, i.e. international applicants.
She doesn't believe that the SATs should be disproportionately looked at, however, to the exclusion of other application materials. "More emphasis should be put on GPA [than SAT scores]," she said.
Some disagree with Hussain, believing that the SATs are unfair to traditionally underprivileged students. However, College Board President Gaston Caperton responded to such concerns last week, suggesting that the sources of the disadvantages be focused on, not the end result.
"I think the SATs are a valid test," freshman Kelly Sarson said. Sarson believes that the test can't be blamed for any disproportionate results. "I think you don't need to change the SAT _ you need to go to the root of the problem," she said.
To do this, educational opportunities need to be examined from the beginning _ during elementary school or even preschool. If all students are getting equal opportunities at these levels, it follows that they will perform proportionately well on the SAT.
There is also an argument against the notion that SATs "level the playing field." The test-prep business has gotten quite large, and it is not unheard of to spend upwards of $1000 on "coaching," which is fine _ if you can afford it. While the College Board, the organization that owns and administers the SAT, insists that coaching usually has a minimal effect on raising scores, there are divided opinions on the fairness of coaching.
Senior Audrey Rabinowitz believes that SAT prep classes can be beneficial, but not so much that the classes create inequity in SAT scores. Rabinowitz had previously taken an SAT prep class, complete with a hefty price tag. "I can't remember how much it cost... it was probably an exorbitant amount, though," she said. However, she believes that prep classes are suited to a certain type of person _ some could certainly benefit, but some might not. "It really depends on the person, but [the classes don't help] enough that anyone would be at a disadvantage," Rabinowitz said.
Harriet Brand, a spokesperson for Princeton Review _ one of the largest test prep organizations in the country _ disagreed with Rabinowitz's view. "We think test prep is very valuable... it gives students confidence... it makes students familiar with the format of the test... and it gives students strategies to use on the test," she said.
However, Brand doesn't deny that test prep disproportionately favors those students that can afford it. "Absolutely [it's unfair], which is why we're pushing for federal or state funded test prep," she said.
