In Favor of the ACT

The author of this article took all the archived ACT tests, taught at an ACT prep program, and analyzed ACT scores.  Keeping in mind the cardinal rule of statistics--without data, all you have is an opinion--this man backs up his assertions with data:

Exams like the American College Test (ACT) are supposed to assess how much information students learned in high school and, by implication, their preparedness for college. However, they’ve been criticized as being biased against female, minority, and low-income students.

data data data

Clearly, the ACT does not discriminate against females.

He's very familiar with the test:

As a biological psychologist, I’ve taught mostly in the fields of neuroscience, brain function, learning theory, cognition, and the like. But I also spent 12 years teaching high-school science, math, and ACT prep courses for a large, nonprofit tutoring center that drew students from about a dozen varied high schools.

To stay abreast of changes to the ACT, and to understand it from my students’ perspectives, I took all of the ACTs archived at the center and new versions as they were released. I know the test pretty well.

data data data

What does he conclude? 

Taking a more rigorous high-school curriculum helped everyone.

These overall scores are often used to claim that the ACT is racially biased. However, if the scores are considered in terms of race and self-reported postsecondary aspirations, a more complex picture emerges...

One criticism of standardized tests is that only the well-to-do can afford “expensive” prep courses. Critics stress “expensive” to emphasize their claim that prep courses advantage wealthier students. This is wrongheaded for two reasons.

First, prep courses are not that helpful. I analyzed the pre- and post-test scores of 205 students who took the ACT prep course offered by the tutoring center where I taught...

These modest improvements are typical for test prep courses and cannot, alone, change the trajectory of anyone’s academic career. Further, the data do not support the contention that the inability to take a prep course, per se, is preventing deserving students from going to college.

The second, more important point is that test prep materials are available for free either through high-school programs or online. While there may be social or circumstantial barriers to accessing the online materials, wealth is not one of them. I’ve never met a high-school student without a smartphone.

Finally, it’s important to reiterate that an ACT prep course simply cannot substitute for four years of high school. Accessibility to a prep course is not what’s standing between an unprepared student and college admission. It’s unfair to students to claim otherwise...

Does the ACT discriminate? After 12 years of teaching this and similar standardized tests, I’ve learned that the only way to do well on the ACT is to take it after having learned the basic material that it covers. That takes several years of high school. There are no shortcuts, tricks, or special strategies (much to the dismay of many students and their parents).

I'll speak for myself here, not for the author of the article above.  Students and parents see these standardized test scores the same way they see grades, as commodities to be hoarded and maximized.  Rather, scores and grades are and should be merely proxies for learning.  If you don't do well, it's because you didn't learn the material that was being tested.

Is there a racial bias?  Perhaps, but it's not in the test itself, but rather in an educational system that focuses on pop psychology and feeeeeelings instead of the hard work of teaching and learning.  When they can't give you good government, they give you "woke" government; when they can't give you good education, they give you "woke" education.

There is no royal road to geometry.