I first started worrying about getting into college in 7th grade, at the tender age of thirteen, when I had to take the ACT in order to apply to a summer program. I remember feeling extremely anxious as I walked into the local high school, surrounded by people much older than me. I did not complete the majority of any test section, a problem I would continue to have in high school, the score I received was not what I wanted, and I did not get into the summer program.
Even back then, I realized how unfair it was that a single test score — not my numerous other credentials — decided my path. After this taste of the power of the ACT, I knew a quality resume and high grade point average would only take me so far in high school and that a few meager points could make a significant difference when it came to applying to colleges and scholarships. This realization led me down a path of ACT tutoring and multiple retakes. I was fortunate to have the resources and opportunities that allowed me to keep working on my score, but most aren’t as lucky.
Achievement and opportunity gaps are exacerbated by a college admissions’ process that relies so heavily on standardized entry tests. Fortunately, the case against heavy emphasis on standardized test scores is solid and growing, and is comprised of three compelling arguments.
Even back then, I realized how unfair it was that a single test score — not my numerous other credentials — decided my path.
First, the correlation between test scores and family income is too high. Advocates for college entrance exams say standardized tests allow colleges to compare students from across the country. They claim that, because different high schools have different levels of difficulty and different grading scales, grade point averages cannot serve this function. However, such discrepancies also exist in ACT and SAT scores because access to resources like tutors, practice materials, and retests are not universal. Tutoring can cost up to $3800, and one testing session costs around $50. Most families cannot afford such extreme costs, putting low-income students at a disadvantage in the application process. If two candidates of different socioeconomic backgrounds apply to a university or program with almost identical credentials, a higher score on a standardized test by the wealthier person could be the the deciding factor in their admittance. Hardly equitable, right?
Second, registrations for these tests can occur months in advance, and it is not possible for students to take into account potential conflicting life events, such as illness, deaths in the family, relationship problems, and other outside stressors when registering for a testing date. Testing anxiety is another unpredictable contingency which negatively impacts students’ scores. Such anxiety can lead to panic attacks, which the Anxiety and Depression Association of America describes as “the abrupt onset of intense fear or discomfort in which individuals may feel like they are unable to breathe or having a heart attack.” For the 16% to 20% of students suffer from this condition, focusing on a test is difficult, if not impossible. And one bad day of unforeseeable circumstances can pose a serious threat to the futures of students who can only test a few times due to financial constraints.
Finally, the notion that standardized tests are viable indicators of potential academic achievement disregards student work ethic, among other factors. By ignoring the multitude of outlets for student potential, standardized tests fail in recognizing that students learn and are successful in various ways. Many colleges use the ACT and SAT as cut-offs: if a certain score is not reached, admission or scholarship funds will not be granted, even if the student in question is well rounded and has a high grade point average. Doing so ignores the multifaceted nature of student achievement, thus penalizing poor testers who work hard to earn good grades and engage in their communities. Relaxing or removing testing requirements would make institutions more diverse by allowing economically disadvantaged students or those who learn differently access to more schools and scholarship funds.
And one bad day of unforeseeable circumstances can pose a serious threat to the futures of students who can only test a few times due to financial constraints.
Being successful in college is about more than questions in an exam booklet. A study by the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research found that the ACT scores of students who did and did not earn Bachelor’s degrees differed by fewer than two points. Furthermore, time management, interpersonal skills, and level of motivation are valued more in the real world than the ability to memorize facts, but standardized tests ignore valuable soft skills like ambition and creativity. Admissions officers should place stronger emphasis on applicants’ cumulative profiles, including academic course load, volunteer work, extracurricular activities, and work experience. Making the SAT and ACT requirement optional, or eliminating it altogether and taking a more holistic review of applicants, will enhance the academic strength of universities.
Fortunately, colleges across the country are beginning to recognize the issues that accompany college entrance exams and are taking action to remedy them. Wake Forest University, George Washington University, Bowdoin College, and many other institutions of higher learning are test-optional, with more following suit. These universities serve as examples for their affiliates. They’re setting an important precedent by propelling the idea that students are more than a score.
Making the SAT and ACT requirement optional, or eliminating it altogether and taking a more holistic review of applicants, will enhance the academic strength of universities.
Every year, millions of students spend precious time and money preparing for a single test in an attempt to have a competitive edge for admissions and scholarships. Every year, millions of students sit down to take exams that will significantly impact their futures. Every year, millions of students are subjected to inaccurate estimations of their potential and self-worth. But a well-rounded student with interpersonal skills, a willingness to work hard, and a lower ACT or SAT score is a better fit for college than a student with only a high test score. Giving so much significance to a single test score is an ineffective, discriminatory, and erroneous method of predicting performance in the real world.
Logan Ziegler is a sophomore at Cornell University and a graduate of Henry Clay High School in Lexington.
The opinions expressed on the Forum represent the individual students to whom they are attributed. They do not reflect the official position or opinion of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence or the Student Voice Team. Read about our policies.
