Recently, the Educational Testing Service proposed several potential changes to the SAT, which for the past 60 years or so has seen many incarnations. Among the changes would be the addition of a short essay, the addition of "Algebra II skills" to the quantitative section and the removal of the analogies component of the verbal section, "which require an understanding of the nuances of English rather than a rote memorization of vocabulary" (CNN.com). My own background in standardized tests -- aside from having taken the normal battery that all Dartmouth students go through -- is fairly extensive. I have taught test preparation to a diverse set of students, including Taiwanese and Chinese first- and second-generation immigrants, "continuation" (read: failed out of normal high school) students and prisoners at Windsor State Penitentiary. I have debated and studied equity issues in standardized testing as both a student and a teaching assistant. When I first read the news of the ETS decision, and as I read op-ed issues in support and in criticism of it, I could not help but feel that the greater point has been totally missed.
To begin with, I will posit that the SAT does essentially what it is intended to do: accredit students with a numerical value that represents their likelihood of succeeding in higher education. I believe this is truer of the verbal section, as the quantitative section tests skills that are too basic to demonstrate exceptional mathematical aptitude, and that are essentially irrelevant to an education in the humanities or social sciences. What the SAT does not do -- and what it has been purported to do -- is test "merit" in the sense of personal worth. The SAT is culturally biased: biased in favor of the culture of the academy. It favors adolescents from stable family backgrounds, students of wealth, students whose parents read to them as children, who have traveled, who themselves read, who speak English as a first language, who attend superior schools. These traits -- among them the dreaded "nuances of English" or "rich understanding of English" -- are equally rewarded in higher education. In the end, the personal qualities of the student are swamped by these environmental advantages or hindrances.
There are, then, two challenges that should be made against the proposed changes to the SAT. First, does it correct the cultural bias? Second, does it maintain an effective evaluation of the necessary skills for higher education? As for the first, I would argue that it does not. For one, the addition of "Algebra II skills" introduces a subject-specific component that is beyond the usual course of study in many under-funded high schools. Two such schools at which I taught in off-terms did not offer Algebra II until senior year, thus ensuring that students at those schools would lack the requisite training to succeed on the SAT. Additionally, the inclusion of an essay section -- while perhaps a worthy addition with the goal of testing achievement and aptitude -- undermines the purported attempt to eliminate a bias against foreign-born speakers. The removal of the analogies section in favor of "rote memorization" makes test preparation all the more effective; test preparation, of course, doubly favors the rich. First, in that those who are more familiar with the system are more inclined to know about the value of test preparation; second, because test prep is fairly expensive.
Would the new SAT be a more effective evaluator? Again, I would say no. The analogies section proved uniquely effective in separating out "naturally" acquired vocabulary -- which my students could use fluently in their writing -- and "artificially" acquired (read: memorized) vocabulary -- which they almost never used effectively. The inclusion of "Algebra II skills" still does not elevate the quantitative section to the point of being an adequate indicator of the level of math required in higher education.
But both of these challenges are missing the big picture. ETS has been extremely effective at keeping the debate at a procedural level: what is the best way to evaluate students? Because of the vagaries of grading methods on the high school level, evaluation should be standardized and because of the volume of students applying to large universities, it should be numerical. If it tests "achievement," then it will necessarily favor those students who are receiving superior education at magnet or private schools; if it tests "aptitude," then its ideal can only be an IQ test, with questionable validity in terms of educational potential.
But the question isn't how should students be evaluated, it's whether students should be evaluated at all for the purpose of placement in higher education. The conflict is not between aptitude and achievement, it is between efficiency -- allocating scarce educational resources to those best able to make use of them -- and equity -- offering an equality of opportunity in what is, essentially, the gateway to all economic, political and social goods. The academy has dodged this issue by using half-way shunts like affirmative action and geographic diversity, and state governments have paid lip service by creating a second tier of public institutions that lack competitive entry. But neither of these "solutions" is sufficient to the problem.
I happen to be an elitist in this matter, and lean toward efficiency. Reliance on a rigorous standardized exam would probably be effective in producing an educational system that found the most qualified students and put them in the best-equipped universities and colleges. A sufficiently rigorous test, which relied exclusively on the "nuances of English," would diminish the value of test preparation. Most of Europe uses this sort of system. But I don't think that elitism is the only valid answer. There is a very real concern that our present system of selection -- which essentially favors the children of the well-educated and academically inclined -- is hardening class distinctions in our society. Eliminating competitive entry and replacing it with, say, a pure lottery system, would smash these class distinctions in a way that affirmative action -- which simply favors the children of well-educated and academically-inclined minorities -- never will. Moreover, by removing competitive entry, the incentives for parents to segregate their "gifted" children from other students will be diminished; there is much less sense in sending your child to private school if it does not -- as it presently does -- offer an easy track into the best universities and colleges in the country. Mixing high school students and offering true diversity in higher education would help erode the barriers between races, classes and cultures.
Of course, neither true efficiency nor true equity will ever be pursued. Excellent universities like Dartmouth have no intention of letting in "unqualified" students in any great numbers; their aim is rather to have a "more just meritocracy" -- one in which the elite will be multicultural and multiracial, if, nevertheless, essentially heritable. On the other hand, these universities are too publicly attached to liberal ideals to pursue real efficiency -- especially if that efficiency might have the added effect of excluding potential donors and legacies. So we end up with universities employing methods that are obviously biased, and then trying to excuse this bias by lowering their quantitative admissions standards for the various "excluded" groups. Unsurprisingly, this generates resentment on all sides. Meanwhile, ETS panders to the uncertainty by revising, re-centering and renaming their examinations. Students are left to do their best to sort it all out, and hope that changes work to their personal advantage.
Ultimately, the academy's dishonesty and equivocation is to no one's benefit. Universities lose academic and moral credibility, and students are left wondering whether they got in due to their achievement, their social advantages, or their race. Until efficiency or equity is adopted and morally defended, I cannot help but imagine that the situation will only get worse.
