Monday, May 31, 2021

Why Eliminate College Entry Tests?

The University of California system is no longer requiring students to submit SAT/ACT scores.  Why?

Without standardized testing, it would be difficult to prove the weight given to race in admissions.

I would guess that's a big reason right there. 

Yet, the University of California's own Standardized Testing Task Force found value in SAT/ACT results:

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.

This is yet another attack on excellence, as I described most recently here.

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 on success. Indeed, at a time when the United States is losing ground on 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.

Suggesting that we help low-scoring, often minority students improve their performance will soon, if it's not already, be a no-go because it "comes from a deficit perspective", an idea that if we don't automatically assume all students are great at everything, we're somehow causing them harm and are probably being white supremacists in the process. 

We as a society need to admit that there are certain cultures and subcultures that value education more than others do, and that if we want all students to succeed in the mass/common culture, those cultures are going to have to change their values and raise their standards rather than expecting the mass/common culture to lower its standards.  Pretending there isn't a problem isn't going to make things better.

Eliminating standardized scores will not erase true racial disparities in our educational system. Indeed, it may only exacerbate them.

This proposed "cure" is far worse than the disease.  Refusing a mammogram or a colonoscopy won't keep you from having cancer.

So why do you think so many are and have been pushing to eliminate the use of college entry tests?

9 comments:

  1. I agree with everything you wrote, but in reality the SAT/AP exams have been altered again and again to try to create ending scores that reflect diversity over merit. For awhile the SAT had an essay component, which I am sure was in hopes that students who didn't distinguish themselves in math and science would shine in the production of a written narrative. Instead, many students who were already struggling on multiple choice grammar and spelling did much, much worse on the essay portion which is why it is no longer part of the test. I predict that soon College Board will remove essays from the AP Art History and History exams. This is akin to eliminating cursive from the skills taught in elementary and then excusing it away when those same grown children can't read cursive as adults. We have to stop doing this! We are eliminating merit, rigor and achievement as markers for success and replacing them with meaningless blather and political newspeak.

    ReplyDelete
  2. From your keyboard to God's ears.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While I agree with Darren's post on this, I do not with Ellen K's comment on cursive. Honestly, cursive is fast becoming a 'dead language.' Everyone in the business community is using electronic devices to write everything including notes. The only thing I use cursive for anymore is my personal notes if and only if I don't have my desktop, laptop, chromebook, or smart phone handy. It is has been years if not a decade or two since I have had to read somebody else's cursive except in my family's birthday cards. Even the Xmas cards now usually include a typed letter instead of cursive greeting.

    So, I ask why would we teach a skill that is no longer needed to be successful in life?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Even though cursive may not be needed for "success," it is still a method of communication used by many, not to mention, say, documents from the past 1000 years or so.
    It's like not teaching people how to drive a manual car -- yeah, it seems like everybody's got an automatic, but the day you have no choice but to drive a manual stick shift, you're going nowhere fast.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fun fact: When working with children, the use of cursive helps them to internalize and decode letter. It's a skill frequently used in dyslexia programs. In addition, by not requiring cursive writing we eliminate individuality as well as the ability to read written documents from other points in history. This is the best way I know to prevent students from separating historical fact from indoctrination. And finally, as will the belief you will always have a calculator b/c you have a cell phone, we have seen recently that systems can fail and a human back up is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:16 PM

    If you want to be able to drive a car in Europe, you might want to learn to drive a stick; 80% of the cars there (down from 90% 25 years ago) have manual transmissions.

    I have a friend who was stationed in The Hague for a few years. She had to special order a car with automatic because no one near her sold the and she didn't know how to drive a manual.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am looking at it that teachers have a limited amount of time to teach an infinite number of topics. Using Pseudo's logic, shouldn't we also teach Latin so people could read documents back back 3,500 years instead of only a mere 1,000? Seriously, how many of today's students will use cursive to read those original documents? They have (almost) all been converted to text for modern scholars to read. The very few who go into sciences requiring them to read original texts can take a course in cursive in college. Paying for it once they have a demonstrated need for it.

    Also, I taught all my kids to drive manual, especially my daughter. Didn't want them stranded if the driver got themselves impaired. That is a life skill that if needed, you need it now. Ability to learn cursive is normally not something thing you need to get yourself out of a situation. If you need it, you take time to learn it first.

    To Ellen I can't argue what you say directly as I have no expertise. However, I ask how much time you take to teach all students cursive so that the few who need the extra help id'ing the letters are successful. And then, what could have you taught ALL of the students if you did not have to teach cursive? As to having a backup, I don't write my notes in cursive when using pen and paper. Few people do, they use a combination of block & cursive, whichever is faster for that particular letter. It would not be that much slower to simply use block letters and therefore you always have a "back-up" way to read and write.

    So I am sticking with my premise that the time used to teach cursive to all students could be better used teaching something else.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I took *shorthand* in high school. I still consider it a valuable (and unique!) skill.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My father MADE me take a year of typing my Junior year in high school. This was the 79-80 school year. As a senior executive in a major international company he saw computers coming to all facets of life. He told me that typing would be a life skill I would never regret. I was one of two males in a class of 413 to take typing.

    I've told him on many occasions thank you so much for requiring me to do that. Learning to touch type has helped me more than knowing cursive ever did or will. I can still crank out 40-50 wpm when necessary.

    ReplyDelete