Read on Twitter
I hadn’t planned to comment on the UC’s decision to suspend the SAT/ACT as an admissions requirement. But I’ve been drawn into a couple debates about it already, so I might as well jot some thoughts down here.
1/
1/
NB: This thread is informed by my experiences as a former educator, college counselor, admissions officer, and education grad student across a variety of institutions, but all opinions are my own.
2/
2/
IMO, disagreement over the decision seems to stem from disagreement over two more fundamental questions:
a) What is the purpose of standardized tests (STs)?
b) What is the purpose of higher ed (HE), especially selective HE like the UCs?
3/
a) What is the purpose of standardized tests (STs)?
b) What is the purpose of higher ed (HE), especially selective HE like the UCs?
3/
There are basically two schools of thought here. The following descriptions are caricatures, but not far from arguments I’ve actually heard and read recently.
4/
4/
School #1 views STs as an objective, meritocratic assessment of college preparedness and deservedness. I.e. a higher score = more deserving of admissions, and other factors (w/ the exception of maybe GPA) should simply be icing.
5/
5/
School #1 views HE as a private good: a reward for having been the best student (whatever that means) and a venue in which to gain skills and a credential that will allow them to live a more rewarding life (whatever that means).
6/
6/
School #2 views STs as, at best, an imperfect predictor of college performance that must be evaluated in the context of a student's background, e.g. family income, school quality, etc, and at worst, a waste of time with no predictive power re: long term life success.
7/
7/
School #2 views HE as a public good: a way to bring students of all stripes together in an intimate social and intellectual environment for 4 yrs before they go on to become (ideally) the diversity- and civic-minded leaders of America.
8/
8/
These two schools of thought are difficult to reconcile, which is why the two sides of this debate seem to be largely talking past each other. For what it’s worth, I lean toward School #2 but appreciate the merits of both.
9/
9/
If I could magically address each side and actually have them listen, here’s what I’d say:
10/
10/
School #1: if your desire for meritocracy is sincere (I have no reason to believe it’s not), then the almost perfect correlation between existing STs and family income should make said STs an anathema to you. https://nyti.ms/36sPLfl
11/
11/
The fact that HS GPA is 5x more accurate at predicting college grad rate than STs, when the latter is 3x more correlated with family income, should also give you pause. https://nyti.ms/3gmqDvB https://bit.ly/36t0cQ5
12/
12/
I’m not /wholly/ opposed to standardized assessments of some sort, but let’s work together to find one that genuinely puts students on a level playing field.
13/
13/
Lastly, your view of HE as a private good is reasonable and not that far off where US schooling has been heading for the past half-century anyway (indeed, it’s in the language of Brown v Board)…
14/
14/
But given how dysfunctional our body politic has become, don’t you think there’s some merit to creating a space where future leaders of all backgrounds (not just the rich and the academically overachieving) can mingle and learn from each other?
15/
15/
School #2: As a former educator, I understand that STs are a deeply flawed measure of student achievement and college preparedness. At the same time...
16/
16/
Any educator worth their salt will tell you they’re largely able to predict the ST scores of their students based on performance in the classroom. But if that’s the case, aren’t STs actually measuring sth useful (and importantly, as the name suggests, in a standardized way)?
17/
17/
Perhaps more importantly, you need to address the elephant in the room. Asian Americans routinely score higher on STs than their other-race peers w/in almost every income band. https://bit.ly/36uHVlK (old data, please link if you have sth more recent)
18/
18/
As a result, one of the net effects of UC’s decision will almost certainly be to decrease the % of AsAm students. Maybe that’s good, maybe that’s bad, but in any case, if you don’t address it (and yes, it’s uncomfortable to talk about) then you lose the moral high ground.
19/
19/
In sum, this issue, like most polarizing issues we face as a society today, is not so black and white. Regardless of how you feel about UC’s decision, let’s engage in informed, good-faith dialogue rather than assuming motives and doomsaying.
20/20
20/20
