THE COLLEGE Board recently has announced new rules for their famous, and sometimes infamous, standardized tests. Starting next year, all students who take the SAT II will have more of a reason to take them seriously. Until now, all of the SAT IIs were administered under the rule of score choice, in which bad scores could be blocked, and students could take a certain test multiple times without anyone being the wiser. Now that this option is rightfully being revoked, the University will better be able to judge who is qualified to attend.
Score choice, which is considered a blessing by many of the students who use it, is a way to keep low scores away from the colleges that one applies to. For any SAT II exam, after viewing their score, students can determine whether or not they want to keep it. If not, the score is not printed on the transcript that the college sees, and the student will never have to worry about the consequences that a bad score may bring. In this manner, students technically are able to take the same test as many times as they want over the course of their high school careers. On the other hand, the new system would eliminate this option, and all the scores earned on standardized tests would show up on students' transcripts.
Such a change in the administration of the SAT II is good for two reasons. It would force students to take the SAT II more seriously, and thus the colleges will have a more accurate representation on who is qualified. When students take the SAT I, they study hard and prepare for it as if it could affect their college applications. For standardized tests to be taken seriously, each one that a student takes has to count toward his future. To do otherwise is to destroy the entire principle behind the SAT II, which is to show the student's ability to excel in particular topics.
|
The way the system operates now, a student who gets a 700 his sixth time on a math SAT II is judged on the exact same scale by as a student who scores a 700 on his first shot. It is logically unfair to judge these two individuals as equals in their math prowess, but this is exactly what happens now. The more times that a student takes it, the more it illegitimatizes what he already has done, since it becomes more likely that an abnormally good grade would appear as a fluke. An admissions officer may admit the lesser student based on other merits when he is not as qualified academically to be there in the first place. Or, in an even worse scenario, the admissions officer may silently decide to not count the SAT II as a deciding factor at all. This would take away from the people who are talented in their respective fields, and it would detract from the selective process itself. Currently, the SAT, albeit flawed, exists as the most even bar by which students can be measured against others. It becomes a daunting task to compare averages without the standardized test, because a lower GPA or class rank simply may mean a more difficult school or a more competitive class.
One of the main reasons why the SATs are considered biased and flawed is their obvious favoring toward the rich and upper middle class in our country. As tests that students must pay for richer students can afford to take the standardized tests as many times as they like. The SAT II costs over $20 for each test, and a student who is on welfare or living from day to day may not have the monetary means to take the test multiple times. Getting rid of the score choice option partially would fix the problem, and the admissions officer could account for both the highest score and the amount of times that it took to attain that score by viewing all of them.
Lastly, any student who wants score choice because they had a "bad day" ought to remember that those with low economic status also have "bad days," and that their situation is not special. Admissions will recognize a fluke if two scores from the same student are extremely different, and an argument of sympathy for a "bad day" should not be given any validity when considering the facts.
By eliminating score choice, the College Board is attempting to rectify what they have recognized to be flawed. Although the effectiveness of the SAT in its present form may be called into question, this new rule is a step in the right direction. Colleges such as the University will be able to judge students on a fairer scale, and they will be able to admit students based solely on their merits. By denying score choice, the College Board will come close to achieving total equality between students of diverse economic standing, and it will force particular students to study harder instead of relying on hiding their weaknesses to pull them through the application process.
(Kevin James Wong's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at kwong@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Commend the University Police Department’s improved incident responses
By Editorial Board | 2 hours agoAlthough frustration at the timing and specificity of the police response to this situation is understandable, UPD’s response must be understood in the context of other safety challenges over the past few years.
FREED: Before embracing AI, Virginia schools need an update
By Dan Freed | YesterdayAdvocates saving AI a seat in the classroom are in desperate need of a reality check.
EDITORIAL: Celebrate the Contemplative Commons and other non-academic student spaces
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoThe Contemplative Commons stands as a testament to the value of spaces that transcend commercial imperatives, fostering interdisciplinary engagement and experiential learning.
