Dartmouth issued a statement reinstating the SAT as an unsuccessful test-optional policy implemented during the pandemic: “Nearly four years later, having studied the role of testing in our admissions process as well as its value as a predictor of student success at Dartmouth, we are removing the extended pause and reactivating the standardized testing requirement for undergraduate admission, effective with the Class of 2029.”
What is alarming is how academics have ignored research showing that these scores are reliable predictors of success in college. Diversity policies have been given the priority over academic excellence. The result is that many students are being placed into schools where they are less likely to thrive and succeed.
As noted by the New York Times, studies at Ivy League schools show that GPAs hold limited value as predictors of success while test scores are highly indicative of success.
It does not matter in today’s academic environment. Then University of California President Janet Napolitano caved to this movement.
Notably, academics in the California system came to the same conclusion as Dartmouth years ago. Napolitano, however, overrode those conclusions.
Napolitano responded to the claims of racism in the use of SAT scores with a Standardized Testing Task Force in 2019. Many people expected the task force to recommend the cessation of standardized testing. The task force did find that 59 percent of high school graduates were Latino, African-American or Native American but only 37 percent were admitted as UC freshman students. The Task Force did not find standardized testing to be unreliable or call for its abandonment, however.
Instead, its final report concluded that “At UC, test scores are currently better predictors of first-year GPA than high school grade point average (HSGPA), and about as good at predicting first-year retention, [University] GPA, and graduation.”
Not only that, it found: “Further, the amount of variance in student outcomes explained by test scores has increased since 2007 … Test scores are predictive for all demographic groups and disciplines … In fact, test scores are better predictors of success for students who are Underrepresented Minority Students (URMs), who are first generation, or whose families are low-income.” In other words, test scores remain the best indicator for continued performance in college.
That clearly was not the result Napolitano or some others wanted. So, she simply announced a cessation of the use of such scores in admissions. The system will go to a “test-blind” system until or unless it develops its own test.
Even the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) yielded to this movement during the pandemic by dropping the use of standardized testing requirements. However, MIT later reversed that decision and reinstated the use of the tests as key to preserving its elite status as an educational institution.
Despite these studies, most academics are likely to remain silent over the deemphasis of standardized scores. Few want to be accused of being hostile to diversity goals. Instead, the National Education Association (NEA) and other groups simply repeat claims of the inherent racism of standardized scores by figures like Kendi X. Figures like Kendi X are routinely called to campuses to hold forth on how “standardized tests have become the most effective racist weapon ever devised to objectively degrade Black and Brown minds and legally exclude their bodies from prestigious schools.”
Former Barnard College mathematics professor Cathy O’Neil has written a column calling for “random selection” of all college graduates to guarantee racial diversity. It is ever so simple: “Never mind optional standardized tests. If you show interest, your name goes in a big hat.”
I have long argued against this movement.
The elimination of scores has a pronounced impact on students. While it will likely allow for greater diversity in admissions, it also removes a way for students to distinguish themselves in actual testing of their knowledge of math, English and other subjects. Yes, there are other ways to distinguish themselves, like community service and high school projects. Yet, as found by the UC task force, these tests do have a predictive value of success. Indeed, at a time when the United States is losing ground in math and science, the elimination of such testing could undermine our competitive position in a global economy; countries like China demand high levels of objective performance in areas like math and science.
There is an alternative. Rather than eliminate standardized scores due to the disparity in performance of racial groups, we should focus on improving the performance of minority high school students in these areas.
Testing results reflect a continuing failure of our public schools. The top-spending public school districts are also some of the worst-performing districts. New York topped the per capita spending, at $24,040 per kid. Yet, according to a 2019 study, over half of New York City public school kids cannot handle basic math or English. On tests, Asian kids shows a 74.4 percent proficiency in math, with a 66.6 percent proficiency for whites, 33.2 percent proficiency for Hispanics and 28.2 percent proficiency for African Americans.
Eliminating standardized scores does not erase true racial disparities in our educational system. Indeed, it exacerbates them.