SATs, Score Choice, and Inequality in Higher Education

The New York Times ran a piece yesterday on “Score Choice,” the College Board’s decision to allow students to present only their best SAT score to colleges. This very practice for SAT II subject tests was stopped in 2002 because, according to the Times, the College Board thought that “ending Score Choice would be fairer to low-income and minority students, who did not have the resources to keep retaking the tests.” They’ve apparently changed their mind, in an effort to reduce stress in the admissions process.

Some schools are apparently fighting this change, including either Claremont McKenna or Pomona (the Times mentions CMC but quotes the Dean of Admissions from Pomona):

“Admissions officials at some highly selective colleges — the University of Southern California, Stanford, Claremont McKenna and the University of Pennsylvania, among others — have said that, Score Choice or not, they want all the scores — from the SAT and the ACT.

It is in the students’ best interest to send all scores, these officials say, because their practice is to combine the highest subscores from all of the score reports.

“Our plan is to first tell students to relax,” said Bruce Poch, vice president and dean of admissions at Pomona College. “The habit here is like many colleges, which is to see it all, but consider for admission purposes the highest individual score.”

Ironically, the CMC/Pomona policy is already similar to Score Choice in that it encourages students to take the test as often as possible, because they combine the best scores anyway. It seems even more lenient then the Score Choice policy, which at least does not mix and match from various tests.

Whatever the wisdom of Score Choice or the CMC/Pomona policy, the new policy brings to the surface the controversial issues surrounding standardized tests, college admissions, and inequality.

Perhaps a better way to defuse the stress surrounding college admissions is to…stop insisting on the importance of a college degree! A college degree is so insisted upon and expected by employers today that it sets the barriers to entry to the middle-class workforce so high that it leaves behind hard-working, ambitious individuals who don’t have the time or money to go to college. Lest you think scholarships go a long way, think again: out of the quarter of American teens whose families make under $35,000 a year, only one in twenty will earn a four-year degree by the age of 24.

Possible reforms include diverting state money to community colleges and regional schools and encouraging vocational training, so that more resources are poured into institutions that cater more to the lower classes. But perhaps the fairest system would be the following, which we’ll probably never see in our lifetime, but is worth considering. It is put forth in Ross Douthat & Reihan Salam’s book Grand New Party, on “How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream.” Their system includes standardized tests, of course:

“A far fairer system would assign credentials on the basis of examinations, either national or state-level, that evaluate students on the basis of actual skills they’ll need to do their jobs well. The results of the exams would be available to any employer who accessed a national database. A person could take the same exam more than once to demonstrate increased proficiency. Exams of a similar nature could be used to supplement or even replace a traditional college education. Abraham Lincoln proved to be a pretty successful lawyer despite never having attended an accredited law school. It’s only fair that we give today’s young people the same opportunity.”

And, because it’s always good to end with Lincoln, I leave you with that thought.