For my issue brief, I want to look at standardized test requirements in the admissions process of public colleges. I’ve addressed similar topics in my previous civic issues blog posts, and I think that this issue combines aspects of the problems standardized tests include. This is an intervention in a policy discussion because the current pandemic is causing a lot of higher education institutions to remove their standardized test requirement. In recent years, the University of California schools, which are public, have announced their policy which explains the schools’ plan to permanently remove standardized tests from their admissions process in light of the biases these tests may contain. The current policy that most (but not all) public colleges have in place includes requiring standardized test scores for admission consideration. However, the pandemic is bringing light to the decreasing importance of these tests as well as the challenges they present to many students.
The problem of college admission standardized testing bias has an inadvertent cause. SAT/ACT scores submitted by students to these public schools have already faced a “filtration” by the nature of the tests including factors like cost and prep courses. When these public colleges enforce the requirements for these exams, they are inadvertently enforcing the bias that accompanies the process of these exams. While colleges do strive for a diverse student body, they may not recognize that these standardized tests may actually be a boundary for certain parts of a student body.
I believe that a system change would be the best way to propose this policy because it requires an entire change in a large aspect of the admission process across public institutions. However, a capacity builder approach may be beneficial until colleges can officially make such a large-scale change. By educating college admission officers through programs and workshops, they may be able to better advocate for change themselves or take the students’ problems into consideration when they read applications on an individual basis. The multi-pronged approach would most likely make this policy seem more sustainable and achievable for institutions.
Additional Sources: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-01-12/uc-should-permanently-eliminate-sat-and-all-standardized-tests-for-admissions-experts-say
I think your idea is solid and can be easily written as an issue brief. I agree that it is an inadvertent cause but it could also be intentional. Schools know that there is bias to these tests and that at the end of the day ACT/SAT do not care about the students as much as they care about making money. From that point of view, the company, it definitely has intentional cause. I think your solutions are good! Maybe another solution could be until all colleges take away the requirement to have free tutoring services and opportunities for all students. Overall solid topic, ideas and solutions!
Hi Lily! Yes, the cause of this issue definitely falls between the unclear boundary of inadvertent and intentional cause. I only ultimately went with inadvertent because I’m leaning more towards implementing this policy towards colleges that want to diversify their student population but don’t know that these test requirements are preventing them from doing so fully. Thanks so much for the feedback and comments, they were really helpful!
I am so excited that you chose this for your issue brief topic. As I previously commented on your civic issue blogs, this is a topic that I am quite passionate about as well. There needs to be a call for change and right now is the perfect time for change to be made due to the pandemic. I think that you have narrowed down the topic as much as you can and it seems like you have a great foundation to go off of. I would definitely reflect back to your old civic issues blog regarding this topic and use some of the statistics and information in that blog in your issue brief. Though I also believe system changes would be a great way for this issue to be explored, I also think using capacity builders could be beneficial. I think that there has always been this stigma around standardized tests, so using capacity builders could shine light on these opinions many have regarding standardized tests. I am looking forward to reading your issue brief once it is completed!
Hi Mia! Yes, I definitely agree that the whole pandemic situation makes this issue a lot more pressing now than ever. I’ll definitely be using some of the stats and information from my previous civic issue posts because I think they’re really helpful in framing the whole issue. I also agree that capacity builders and system changes do seem to be the two strongest options for this issue for now. Thanks for your comment and helpful feedback!
Wow, I am excited for this! This topic makes me so heated, and I am very passionate about the cons of standardized testing. I really feel that you are going to do an excellent job, as from reading your past civic blogs. I liked how you picked “system change”, I know it can be hard going with such a concrete route but in terms of standardized testing, I find it very beneficial. I should say though, I think it would be helpful to incorporate capacity builders, because I think that could really help so-called “beef” up your policy. I am very excited to see what is to come!
Hi Kaylee! I’m so gald we’re both really passionate about this issue. I agree that although system changes is a pretty vague idea, it seems like the best solution for long-term change with this issue at least as a foundation, like you mentioned. Thanks for the comments and feedback!