A few months ago, I was able to attend the “Standardized Testing for College Readiness” deliberation via Zoom on Tuesday, February 28. As most people are already aware, many colleges around the country are removing their mandate for ACT/SAT testing as part of their admission requirements after the COVID-19 pandemic took place, adopting a “test-blind” or “test-optional” style. Although the pandemic has died down today, many colleges are still hanging onto this policy and don’t have any intention of reinstating the requirement again. However, some colleges like MIT have reinstated the requirement this past year because “they are an important factor in assessing the academic preparation of applicants from all backgrounds,” according to their admissions website.
Most of the approaches the moderators discussed focused on abolishing the standardized testing requirement and making the admission process emphasize more on personal qualities rather than academic strengths. In the real world, most people are concerned about one’s softer qualities, overall character, skillsets, and ultimately want to know if they can perform their job appropriately — that’s what it boils down to in reality. Sure, these test scores help colleges compare students from different high schools across a normalized setting, especially true when the course rigor varies from school to school depending on the teacher, of course. Even so, it’s a small piece of the puzzle. Someone during the deliberation brought up a valid point where as long as one performs to the minimum expectations, meaning they don’t have a solid 4.0 GPA but have mostly A’s across all of their courses, it’s sufficient information to suggest they’re an academically-strong student. That information by itself is sufficient to show admissions officers that a particular student will succeed at their college and removes the necessity of having a standardized testing requirement.
Interestingly, one of their other approaches involved revising, rather than eliminating, standardized tests. As most people know right now, major changes are coming to the SAT within the next year or so, where the exam will shift to a digital format and shrink to about two hours in length! Unsurprisingly, this isn’t a coincidence by the College Board — a so-called “nonprofit organization” — as fewer people are signing up to take the SAT and, consequently, losing profits. But these changes are still insufficient — instead, changes that alleviate the pressure and stress involved during an already stressful process are absolutely necessary. Most students oftenly think before taking the test they will be “dead” because they don’t have a satisfactory test score and won’t get into their college of dreams and, consequently, won’t be “set” for the rest of their life. However, introducing these changes can go a long way in lowering students’ concerns and worries, taking the form of fewer “trick” questions or the release of more questions that closely mirror the rigor of questions on the actual exam. It may adequately prepare students and they may feel less pressured during the real exam.
Most of the points they made during the deliberation were valid, and I ultimately feel their approaches should really be considered by key stakeholders like admission officers and testing agencies. Although the admissions process is growing more competitive with each passing year because of the world’s increasing population, filtering students based on a silly test score is unfair and somewhat discriminatory because it doesn’t provide the whole picture of the applicant — in truth, all it’s doing is making money for organizations like the ACT and SAT, as they continue taking advantage of the college admissions process.