Why not give colleges the freedom to design their own entrance examinations, or use whatever standard exam they see fit?

I imagine the requirements and aptitude for Julliard, and MIT, are quite different.

The SAT and ACT have been ignored for years in the name of affirmative action, in order to justify admitting those who are likely to rack up the greatest student loan debt,

by needing several credit hours of remedial courses before they go on to major in some watered down quasi degree like "communications". Or gender studies.

Some yes, some no.
It is a general overall test, the positive with such tests are you can objectively compare 2 students from completely different education backgrounds without knowing their education backgrounds. The negative is it must be rather general (math side, verbal side, etc), and easy to be read by a computer (multiple choice).

The suggestion that it is easy to or desired to just go by grades with an applied fudge factor based on how good or bad that high school is, doesn't really sit well as a good guide. School ranking is rather subjective, and difficult (how many thousands of HS are there) and could change year to year. It also doesn't apply to "new" schools, such as new charter schools or home school.

As to how well it indicates success. That depends on how you are comparing it. Long time ago an admissions officer at an engineering college mentioned to me that they pretty much ignore the verbal side, when looking at students. The math side however was a decent indicator of future success there.
Likewise, I would not be surprised if a journalism school had good correlation of success with the verbal side but none with the math side.

heh, that would all be true, if the whole point of this wasn't to get meaningless credentials, so that you can get your foot in the door at some job...

For meaningless credentials, what better place to start than a meaningless test.
/rant

The ACT/SAT exams were supposed to get us past the biases states had against one another ("oh, you got a 4.0 GPA but from a Mississippi school, so we're crediting you with a 2.0 and cannot admit you here in Ohio").

It was supposed to be an objective way of assessing how much knowledge an applicant had. But lazy college admissions offices began to rely on the tests too much, ignoring or dismissing other criteria since the tests were "objective."

Poorer (economically) students complained that wealthier families paid tutors to prepare their dumb-as-a-post offspring for the tests thus securing them a spot in the academy that should have gone to a better student who did not have the tutoring advantage on the ACT/SAT.

Then race entered into the equation. So, the test results were first "only part of the admission criteria" and then were selectively ignored (and denigrated as biased).

In an effort to continue to be relevant to the admissions process, the test agencies watered down the tests ... adding essays and other non-objective aspects.

Predictably, that did not work very well.

Admitting a student solely on the basis on ACT/SAT scores is ridiculous. A smart student who cruised through high school with minimal effort and scored very high on the SAT may find himself gobsmacked by college-level work (I did).

But ignoring the tests or selectively applying the requirement is equally foolhardy. Admitting a student who does not have a mental storehouse of college-level information sends him unprepared into the fray.

The tests should be what they were first intended to be, an objective way of measuring how much knowledge an applicant has and in what subject areas that knowledge is (i.e., a student doing poorly on the math section of the SAT may want to consider schools other than MIT or Georgia Tech).

As tests of stored general knowledge, the tests are good. As harbingers of future economic success, they're not. The world is full of unemployed geniuses - just go to any bar and ask them.

I taught SAT and GRE prep, and yeah there are tricks... but... in my experience which is admittedly anecdotal

... this is very controversial...

... while there are some people who "just don't test well" most people who "just don't test well" just don't have the skills they are being tested for.

They lack the very basic algebra/geom skills being tested.

They lack the vocabulary and the ability to read the long paragraphs.

There are exceptions, of course, I'm not saying there are not, but by in large the tests are a good indicator of whether or not students have a certain skill set. Now, whether that skill set is important for their future major is another issue.

... oh, and "dumb as post" offspring will get a bump from the test prep, but they're not gonna go from a 400 to an 800.

The cheats help but not THAT much.

Ultimately, having the skills is what helps the most. And yeah, extra teaching and practice will help you get the skills.

I would not have gotten into college if not for my SAT scores. In my experience, high school grades are to a considerable extent determined by sucking up and/or doing something publicly that puts a good light on the school (sports, Eagle Scout, etc.) And, even at the high school level it's often the case that scions of important families in the community get good grades regardless of how well or poorly they perform as students.

I think the reason so many people in the educational establishment hate standardized tests is not because of "bias" but the opposite: they tend to expose cultural failings to the harsh light of day.

As tests of stored general knowledge, the tests are good. As harbingers of future economic success, they're not. The world is full of unemployed geniuses - just go to any bar and ask them.

Posted by: Conan the Grammarian at March 10, 2014 11:33 AM

There are many many reasons why smart people sometimes fail to achieve things academically. I know a couple of gunsmiths with IQs in the genius range.

That said, a real college education is probably wasted on almost two thirds of the people attending now.

I think colleges should start going to exit exams to award diplomas. If you cant achieve a certain score in your major, on a test like the GRE no credentials.

The engineers already do this to a degree with the EIT, and the PE.

I have also noticed that a lot of standardized tests are cropping up for foreign language fluency.

In Great Britain they do O levels, and A levels, in I believe every subject.

That kind of accountability would be an anathema to the current crop of educrats in the US.

I think the reason so many people in the educational establishment hate standardized tests is not because of "bias" but the opposite: they tend to expose cultural failings to the harsh light of day.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at March 10, 2014 11:37 AM

Absolutely agree. That was my experience also. I got into a highly ranked law school that went mostly by LSAT scores, while failing to get in to school in my home state that reserved too many spaces for the children of the politically connected.

I never spent money on SAT prep courses for my kids. They're expensive, and I told my kids if they wanted to prep for the SAT, they should start by reading their school books and doing every bit of their homework.

That said, I can understand Leon Botstein's point -- the SAT can only be a limited tool in measuring aptitude. Overreliance on it will likely result in a school missing out on students who might be do well there. But I agree with Conan, too -- schools discount the results at their (and the applicants') peril.

With one daughter sweating out the tail end of the admissions process, I've had the chance to look at how colleges use SAT and ACT scores in their decisions. Usually, it's one factor of several, often in conjunction with the Common Application, which includes essays, and whatever else the schools ask for. The represenative at one large state campus we visited boasted that the SAT was one of 26 factors they used to evaluate applicants, and that a student with a perfect SAT was by no means assured a place at the school. I figured with 26 factors, evaluations were more or less arbitrary.

One thing I did wonder about: For all Leon Botstein's complaining about the SAT, did the school he runs do anything about it? Well, yes. For applicants who don't want to go through the widely-used Common Application, Bard College offers an alternative entrance examination, which consists of a series of essays. Students scoring above a certain standard get in, regardless of their SAT or ACT scores, which aren't even considered.

It sounds like an interesting idea; maybe it will catch on more widely. On the other hand, Bard College isn't Great Big State University, and I wonder if their applicant pool isn't sort of self-selecting anyway. Students paying sticker price for the place will shell out more than $62,000 per year. I don't know how well Bard's approach would work on a larger scale.

The GRE math cracked me up. At no point did it contain any of the math I had studied the previous four years in college. I had to take the engineering and physics subject tests to find calculus, etc.

The GRE math cracked me up. At no point did it contain any of the math I had studied the previous four years in college. I had to take the engineering and physics subject tests to find calculus, etc.

Posted by: Astra at March 10, 2014 12:53 PM

Probably because it is designed to test your aptitude for graduate studies, not what a math major would necessarily know.

The GRE history test, is very generic, and covers a lot of basic knowledge that a well read person would know. It tests for a basic understanding about world events, in many different areas, not whether you can identify specific historical figures, and events.

The GRE is by no means perfect, just better than the diploma mills they are currently running.

I remembered the days when graduate programs required a certain score to even be considered for a graduate program, but when the feds started throwing free money and loans, at graduate schools, they dropped those requirements in a hurry.

A lot of states have implemented teacher testing for a certificate.

The tests are not hard, but there are still a number of cheating rings operating.

This is why a national test is better, hopefully, more test control, and more variations of the test.

Also a large enough pool of testers to validate the test, which is tough to do at a state or community level.

My mother has a masters degree in tests and measurements
She ran the federal Title one program for years, and did all the testing for the school district.

She is pretty sharp at 89, Phi Beta Kappa, and still wins regularly at duplicate bridge.

The more useful and more revealing a test replacing the SAT is, the more it will be opposed.

The education establishment will not tolerate an objective measure of its own performance. Unions, educrats, and their myriad enablers and getaway drivers in the media will continue to band together to ensure testing of any sort is worthless when performed and altogether avoided whenever possible.

Just in case you might think this argument has no counterpart in the real world…

There are those who think that lowered academic standards are to their benefit. After all, they get the degree or certificate with less work.

At Savannah River Site, oral boards were largely done away with for process operators. Some of these operators cheered the change, because they didn't really want to talk to the managers in a board and reveal what they did not know about the process.

Fast forward a couple of years, and those same operators are reaping the reward: no more certification, no more protected job status, no more assumption on the part of managers that they would know what they were talking about.

They have become a commodity, to be traded and sold as management pleases.

I gotta admit: all this anti-SAT stuff coming up now just makes my blood boil.

When I was in high school, everybody in education WORSHIPPED the fucking thing. As far as the counseling staff was concerned, NO score was high enough. You had to achieve a near-perfect (or higher) score, or you'd NEVER amount to anything, lose out on your choice college, and dig ditches for sub-minimum wage the rest of your life.

So what did I (and I presume, lots of other kids) do? We knew we couldn't ace the SAT. So I ran away from it. I went to Long Beach City College, a perfectly good community college, but *not* my dream school of course (which were either CSULB or UCI). And I wasted time worrying about having to take it to transfer... and long story short, SAT fear was part of why I still haven't moved onto a four-year degree.

Now yes, I'm responsible for my own actions in the long run. But it's amazing to see how fads change. And in the case of this one... so as not to make this comment even more ridiculously longer, it did damage to me. Real damage.

@qdpsteve. I have a real fear of traveling. So bad, I can throw up before getting on a plane.

Unlike you, I realize this is not the plane's fault.

And I have never heard of anyone being asked to take the SAT after two successful years at a community college.

Have you thought about anti anxiety medication?

I'm betting the best way to come up with education that measures up to a new, more rigorous SAT standard would be to completely privatize the school systems. As in PRIVATE schools, as opposed to public-private partnerships. Competition and parental choice should help guide the schools toward these more rigorous standards.

Fat chance the Teachers Union knuckleheads would allow it, though.

. . . reinvent a college entrance examination system . . . in an effort to reverse the unacceptable low standard of learning among high school graduates . . ."

I disagree; that wasn't the point of any college entrance test. SAT and others tests were originally started as an alternative to the "tried and true" method of college entrance; namely getting someone to recommend you. Prior to the SAT, ACT, etc. colleges would only accept someone if they were recommended by an alumnus. Without knowing someone who attended a certain college, you could NOT get in. period.

College entrance exams were an attempt to end this form of bias. Not perfect, but entrance exams were better than that old "who do you know" method.

As far as this article from Bard College President - It is nothing more than a form of advertising for Bard. Bard has set itself aside as a Liberal Arts College and needs to attract a certain clientele - an somewhat elitist clientele. A we are so elite that we don't "do" standardized entrance exams clientele. And, that is their right.

But, what Bard has done by creating their own entrance exam is suggest that each college create their own. Just who does that help? Not the high school student who might have to worry about, not one test, but several entrance exams depending upon which colleges s/he wants to attend. Don't get accepted into one school, then take another entrance exam at another, and then another. Man, that would be mind-numbing for anyone trying to get into college.

Each college setting up their own entrance exam could also lead to a throwback to the old "who do you know" entrance. Perhaps, not directly; but, given that the only way to find out about a test for each college is to ask someone at that college is not much different from having to know someone before applying there.

At least with just ONE exam accepted by most colleges the wannabe college student has some idea of what schools might possible. With just ONE entrance exam the wannabe college student is under a lot less pressure than taking 4, 5 or 6 exams.

With just a quick look at standardized test scores college entrance officers didn't have to make judgments about the student's high school career. High school transcripts are not always a reliable method either. Just how rigorous was each class that the student took? Was that Algebra II class really Algebra II? Or was it more of a remedial Algebra class? Judgments about high school students transcripts and grades could often be wrong, or in the very least, very arbitrary.

So, in my opinion the SAT, while not perfect, is far better than any other alternative truly suggested to date.

qdpsteve - I second the suggestion to try drugs.

I took 8 years to get my undergraduate degree (panick attacks, etc.) was incapable of reading the words on the page in order to study for the LSAT, and took the bar exam twice, all due to blinding testing anxiety.

I've only had one surgery in my life. The doctor was going to try an experimental procedure, and if it didn't work, she was going to resort to our original plan - drilling near my eye and brain, which could go flawlessly, or not. As they pushed the anti anxiety drug into my vein, my last thought was not about living or dying, it was "Where was this stuff when I was studying for the bar exam?"

I used Concerta to help me focus in the three weeks leading up to my second exam. It was great at helping me bracket my emotions - concerns etc. - and focus on test prep. It turned my mind so linear that I had lists for my lists. It didn't get rid of anxiety, but it was amazing.

I also did meditation, deep breathing, and later added long distance running. These help, but the drugs... the drugs are wonderful.

Also, for what it's worth - when I went back to slay some of those childhood dragons, I called the school administration and asked to see my Permanent Record. There isn't one - the district deletes all the records after seven years.

Dang, comment ate my original comment. Another thing to be violently angry about. :-)

Isab and Michelle, first off: I've been using Prozac for over 20 years now. Has helped a bit. However, it's not great with my anger issues. Also, the mere *presence* of anger about a situation on a person's part (like mine) doesn't necessarily mean that person (like me) absolves themselves from responsbility for a lousy situation. Isab, please re-read my comment as I tried to say as much originally.

Also, I was driven to community college (a good one, thankfully) due to anxiety over taking the SAT; the further issue later was that I might have to take the SAT to transfer. I admit that was a big boo-boo on my part as well: that I was too freakin' afraid of the Long Beach City College guidance counselors in 1986 to ask if I would have to take the SAT after all.

Finally, there is a happy ending of sorts. I just relatively recently found out I *can* enroll at CSULB without any SAT worries, because I'm local to the university. All I need to do is avoid an impacted major, but it turns out my GPA is/was good enough anyway, so I'm finally actually making the arrangements. It's never too late I guess.

The thing is, the type of exam Botstein recommends already exists, in the form of the Advanced Placement exams. However, I don't think that many schools accept them, at least not in the admission process (maybe for class credit once you are admitted). And they are quite expensive to take.

"Isab and Michelle, first off: I've been using Prozac for over 20 years now. Has helped a bit. However, it's not great with my anger issues. Also, the mere *presence* of anger about a situation on a person's part ."

Prozac may not be the best for you. Probably ten others work better for anxiety (for some people)

@cousindave. I agree the advanced placement exams are probably the best, as they are the most closely related to competence in the subject area, while at the same time requiring all the critical skills that the SAT purports to test.

If lots more people take them, the price should go down.

On a test like the SAT, it takes a professional, to really analyze it, and figure out, what it is telling you about a person, and more important what it is not telling you.

When my husband was a child, he was totally bored by standardized tests, so he would pencil in the dots on the answer sheet to form a pattern that he liked.

My mother says this is common with bright but bored boys,

It got him labeled as autistic in elementary school.

When he got older and realized that it was a competition of sorts, he did well enough to get into West Point, although I believe he took the SAT more than once.

When he got older and realized that it was a competition of sorts, he did well enough to get into West Point, although I believe he took the SAT more than once. -- Isab at March 11, 2014 9:41 AM

Are you sure one of them wasn't the ASVAB?

Im sure he did take the ASFAB, as did I when I was in high school.

However West Point is a "university" with very rigorous admissions standards and they require the SAT/ACT, just like MIT or Harvard.

The medical exam is also a tough one.

"Below are the steps associated with the application process at West Point. If you have any questions please contact us online or by phone at (845) 938-4041.
Meet the Basic Requirements for Admission
Submit the Initial Application
Secure a Nomination
Complete the Application
Submit SAT or ACT Scores
Pass the Qualifying Medical Exam & Candidate Fitness Assessment"

I am going by the previous version of the SAT (1600 max points) -- I understand there is a new version.

I don't know of anything that would do better (or suffer similar types of defects) without a whole more effort involved on the part of the test creators and especially the scores. When I took an AP test my understanding for the cost was that it was much more time consuming to evaluate.

I passed the AP Chem test and was told by ever admissions person I asked that would count greatly towards admission though I still had to take the SAT/ACT test. One of them said to the affect that by passing the test you have shown that you can do college level work.

I enjoy telling this story:

A colleague at work was once admitted to MIT. Since he had scored very well on all tests, and had taken advanced math classes in his high school, he decided to take a second-year math course at that institution in his freshman year.

In his first class, he had never seen the sixth symbol the TA put on the board. Deadpan, he said, "MIT is very serious about their mathematics. I stood up, went back to the office and signed up for the proper entry level math course there."

So, it appears that who you are taking the test for matters.