SAT under examination

New test attempts to force diversity

By James Fullmer
From the December 2004 Print Edition

You all remember, I’m sure, the highlight of our high-school lives, the SAT. I know I do — the ceaseless practice tests, the nervous parents, the endless strings of little bubbles to be filled in. Suddenly I remember why I like college so much better than high school. But, for those of you who do not have younger siblings currently living that experience and those of you who do not enjoy checking up on the College Board once in a while, there is news from the front. The traditional SAT is being retired, to be replaced by a behemoth examination that costs $41.50, takes three hours and 45 minutes, and will “better reflect what students study in high school,” according to the College Board’s Web site.

The new SAT takes out those pesky analogies, raises the level of math questions to third-year level, and adds a new writing section complete with a short 25-minute essay; hence the extra 800 points to bring the total score to 2400. To give thanks for this change, we need look no further than the University of California system itself, which threatened to stop using the SAT altogether unless it was changed.

The President of the University says he hopes that the new test will increase minority enrollment. Apparently he’s not satisfied with the University’s previous attempt at changing the demographics of the incoming class, in which the administration doubled the weight assigned to the SAT II subject tests in order to give an extra boost to non-native English speakers who take the subject tests in their native languages.

George Blumenthal, the chair of the Academic Senate, told the Daily Californian in an interview, “My hope is that the new test will improve eligibility of certain ethnic and socioeconomic groups. I hope it allows access.”

Assume briefly that the SAT is culturally biased and unfairly discriminates against “certain ethnic and socioeconomic groups.” This would require one to ignore the fact that Asians, many of whom come here knowing hardly any English at all, have a higher mean score than whites on the test. Apparently, for reasons unknown, the cultural bias does not affect this ethnic group.

Assume also that the SAT, as formerly written, was unfair and more difficult for blacks and Hispanics. Remember that the former SAT was an aptitude test, while the newer version is an achievement test. Is the best solution really to change it so that it measures what is taught in school? As any supporter of affirmative action will assert, failing inner city schools are disproportionately filled with minority students. How are they supposed to do well on an exam that tests what they are learning in school if, as these activists would have you believe, they are not actually learning? This is particularly ironic, considering that one of the earliest backers of the SAT in its original form, Harvard President James Conant, saw the test as a way to level the playing field for students at less-prestigious high schools.

The socioeconomic argument contends that, under the old SAT system, more wealthy students had the advantage because of their ability to pay for expensive preparation classes and books. But rewriting the SAT changes nothing as far as costly test preparation is concerned. In fact, test guides for the new SAT are already for sale on Amazon. An August 9 report in the Detroit Free Press quoted one Michigan high school junior as saying, “The score will determine whether it was worth $1,000,” in reference to the new test-prep classes he had signed up for. The bottom line is, no matter what kind of test is created, someone will come along and offer to help people pass it for a tidy fee.

The Oct. 27, 2003, issue of Time magazine pointed out the possible impacts of the new SAT on schooling, noting that teachers feel obligated to teach to the test, rather than their traditional curricula, and make sure that they cover all the subject matter in time for their students to take it — this makes the new SAT the focus of high school education, almost an end in itself, which is certainly not the purpose of the exam. Time also pointed out that aptitude tests, like the old SAT, are more likely than achievement tests, such as the new version, to predict success in college. For that matter, the racial disparity in scores is actually smaller on aptitude tests than it is on achievement tests. Go figure.

Finally, with the addition of a subjectively graded essay section, the last objective measure of student success has been thrown out. Grades are subjective; letters of recommendation are subjective; but the SAT was always there as an objective measure to balance student resumes.

So the new SAT is 45 minutes longer, $15 more expensive, and solves none of the problems of the old SAT. I don’t get it. But then again, I guess that makes sense — I didn’t score anywhere near a 2400 on mine.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot