The Zinch Report

I think standardized tests play a role in the process, but we just have to accept their limitations. We need some type of independent, universal way to measure success, and while I'm the first one to acknowledge the system isn't perfect, I don't know of a better one.

Fair, Chris.

That being said, at what point do we accept that while having a simple, independent, universal way to measure human potential from a young age would be great, the SAT isn't it, and that it may actually cause more harm than good?

Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler... - Einstein

What a great article. I agree. There are so many kids out there with great potential that are making an actual difference in the world, and if they don't get a good score on the SAT, colleges neglect them even if they are a great student and person. There are also those out there that can't financially afford the SAT prep books and those expensive SAT prep classes, they go into the test unprepared and then get a bad score. I am sure that there are some really smart students with a great potential of success in college that get low scores on the SAT, and this ruins their chances for their dream college.

I hope that more schools think twice about the SAT and how much of it actually reflects the students. Good thing that Zinch is here to help us out.

The funny thing is I am reading this article while 152 high school students sit in front of me, taking the SAT. Gotta love administering the test for a measly $75.

I'm on the fence with this issue.

I understand why colleges are using the SAT in the admissions process, because it helps with weeding out early on. For example, it would make sense for a school like Harvard or Yale to immediately cut out applicants with SAT math or critical reading scores in the 400's (not that people making those scores are lesser, but they typically are not the type of students Harvard is looking for. Key word: typically).

However, after this "initial cut", I would agree that SAT scores should be forgotten. Basically, it makes sense to use SAT scores for the first round of looking at applications, but after that, the student should be judged according to what makes them more than their score. "I am more than a test score" doesn't necessarily mean that test scores are irrelevant. They are just not of the highest importance.

I hope that makes sense...

What if a person just isn't good at taking tests? They do their school/home work, participate in class, make good grades but freeze on exams?

An SAT score doesn't tell a college those things.

Many students who really don't want to learn, go because their parents want them to go, or they only want to party, and get away from parental authority without giving up the parental financial support, again SAT's don't tell colleges that.

Sure, one short Saturday test isn't indicative of my abilities as a learner or contributor to campus, but neither is one short personal essay, or one short résumé of activities. I certainly don't think one test should determine a student's acceptance, but that's not usually the case anyway. Selective schools take into account the whole application, and many (most?) consider the student's high school transcript as being the most important part of the application package.

Call me pessimistic, but I have to believe that college admissions is not a straight and fair meritocracy, and I dare say I'm okay with that. It's not just about being *capable* of the work or "deserving" acceptance, the same way I didn't just apply to any challenging school that miiight take me. Colleges are looking for different flavors of students--strong leaders, unique backgrounds, students interested in a new program, male dancers to balance out productions, whatever. We have to really understand what admission to a college actually means. I don't think admissions is a random crapshoot, but basing the next four years of a person's life on the exchange of a few envelopes and one or two conversations (if you're lucky) definitely involves a lot of betting. It can't be taken too personally.

The statement Wake Forest, Smith, Bates, etc. are making is not just that the SAT has become less important, but that it's of absolutely no relevance whatsoever to their own processes. Huge. So that means that the advantages of the SAT (standardization, third-party administration, high-stress, etc.) are either unimportant or determinable through other parts of the application, in those schools' eyes. To me, I think of it as another "fit" thing, like the rest of the application process. Some schools require more/different essays, more/different recommendations, or evaluate the transcript differently. In light of the massive increases in applications, I can understand why a school would knock it to save time. But knowing that it's only one part of the application, I wouldn't really mind schools continuing to require the test, either.

I think that SATs are unnecessary.

Other than that the SATs do not even come close to accurately evaluating a person's abilities in the three academic core areas, the given conditions for taking those tests and the assumptions behind them are ridiculous.

The test is one a Saturday morning. The students come into an unfamiliar setting where it may be uncomfortable, and take a test that seems to take about half the entire day. The test is exponentially draining. There's a good forty-five minutes to an hour of waiting in line and filling out the personal information. By then, you don't even want to see any more bubbles and realize that the entire test is divided into convenient ten sections, all randomly varying in size and subject.

Hour and hour, the student is forced to make quick decisions that can only be trained through practicing (another Catch-22 in the SAT system - study for a test that's supposed to evaluate your cumulative academic strength) in a frighteningly short or extensively long time span.

Oh wait, but before you begin, you also have an essay! You have to plan and write an entire impromtu essay, which is one of the worst ways of evaluating one's writing skills. Many people are talented writers, but not everyone who takes the SAT is not a good timed writer on impromtu subjects.

Okay, you get the point, right? A test that is only supposed to fairly and equally evaluate a person's academic strength isn't supposed to be crammed all into one sitting, because that factors in test-taking skills and time management, along with endurance.

I believe the colleges use SATs because the numbers make it easy to evaluate someone. "Oh, wait, you got a 650 on your Math? You must be smarter than the guy who got 550!" It's convenient and takes the pressure off colleges in deciding who spent his/her time more wisely in high school (extra curricular activities or every Saturday in a little room taking SATs - oh wait, that doesn't sound right, does it?).

Also, I'm sure we can all relate to the first time we took an SAT test and bombed everything. Then we pick up a review book, study a few tricks and traps and end up with over 700 in every category. The SAT is not an evaluation of intelligence: it's about how well you can prepare for a test.

For example, in Math, there are tricks and repeated questions that people who have taken multiple practice exams will recognize. This person might solve a problem in thirty seconds while a first-timer might take three minutes. This is not an advantage gained from intelligence. The person who is taking the test for the first time and the person who is taking the test second time should have equal chances of scoring the same without knowing any tricks. After all, this test isn't theoretically supposed to have "tricks" that can be applied to a majority of the problems.

In writing, there are only a few grammar rules in use. One you learn the twenty common grammar mistakes, writing becomes immensely easy.

In critical reading, most of the answers are subjective, so it is difficult to score high (well, it was for me).

I think if the SATs advertised itself as an tool to evaluate how well you can prepare for a test and endure it, I would endorse it more because that's what an SAT is. It's about how well you can study for THAT test.