Search News


Browse Archives

News

Dramatic Challenge to SAT and ACT

September 22, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Calling on colleges to "take back the conversation," a special panel convened by the National Association for College Admission Counseling will this week encourage colleges to consider dropping the SAT or ACT as admissions requirements.

The panel, in a report to be formally released this week, calls on all colleges to consider more systematically whether they really need testing to admit their students. If there is not clear evidence of the need for testing, the commission urges the colleges to drop the requirement and it expresses the view that there are likely more colleges and universities that could make such a change.

While stressing that there is not a "one-size-fits-all" approach to admissions and testing, and not ruling out that testing may be needed at some institutions, the commission generally takes a very critical look at testing -- in a significant shift from past NACAC statements. A 1995 statement from the association, while cautioning against the use of tests for purposes for which they were not intended, said that "when used properly ... tests have the potential of helping admission professionals make sound admissions decisions and of helping students choose where to apply and enroll."

This year's NACAC commission -- led by William Fitzsimmons, dean of admission and financial aid at Harvard University -- uses very different language. It talks about how the discussion of standardized testing has come to be "dominated by the media, commercial interests, and organizations outside of the college admission office." In addition, the panel cites research suggesting that colleges have been placing more emphasis on testing despite evidence that they should be moving in the opposite direction. Generally, the commission supports the position that high school grades in pre-college courses are the best way to predict college success -- and that is the tool most relied upon by colleges that have ended testing requirements.

In addition, the commission says that colleges must seriously consider the possibility that standardized tests are not equally valid for all groups of people. Because Asian and white students, on average, receive higher scores than black and Latino students, many educators have worried that testing limits minority enrollments. Testing companies have said that the gaps reflect inequities in the quality of education in the United States, but have defended their validity.

The NACAC commission report says that while this debate "may never be conclusively resolved," the issue "can be acknowledged and appropriately factored into admission decisions." On a related issue of fairness, the commission finds that coaching (of the sort wealthier students receive) does have a real impact on test scores, even if less than is commonly believed.

The new NACAC report is also striking for directly challenging the argument put forward by testing supporters all the time: that more information is inherently good for admissions. The report says that many colleges that have dropped the SAT or ACT have done so without any adverse impact. Further, it questions the logic of using the SAT just to gather more information.

"The question, we believe, is not of more versus less evidence," the report says. "This argument begs the question of why colleges don't simply require every test score available, including both SAT and ACT, College Board Subject Tests, graduation exams and Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams. Rather, the question is about the utility of the means by which institutions achieve their mission-driven enrollment ends."

The report acknowledges a correlation between test scores and college grades, but -- echoing the argument used by colleges that have dropped testing requirements -- says that there are real questions about the additional information gained by test scores beyond what colleges can determine with high school grades. For this reason, it suggests that all colleges conduct "institution-specific validity studies," to make sure there is a reason to keep the tests.

Colleges that have conducted in-depth analyses of the value of standardized tests have frequently ended up questioning the tests' use. For example, the University of California recently studied whether SAT subject tests helped admissions decisions and found -- generally -- that they do not. Hamilton College, prior to abandoning an SAT requirement in 2006, conducted a five-year experiment being SAT-optional. During that time, the 40 percent of students who didn't submit SAT scores performed slightly better at Hamilton -- a highly competitive liberal arts college -- than did those who did submit scores. And in a finding consistent with studies at other colleges, Hamilton found that when it went test-optional, it received more applications from students at the top of their high school classes and many more applications from minority students.

The NACAC report will be formally released later this week at the association's annual meeting, in Seattle, and comes at a pivotal time for the debate over testing. The National Center for Fair and Open Testing maintains a list of more than 770 colleges that do not require the SAT or ACT. While many of those colleges are not competitive in admissions, a growing number are.

Generally, the push for going SAT-optional among competitive colleges has been strongest among liberal arts colleges, whose small size and educational values mesh well with the idea of a highly personalized look at applications. But more recently, the SAT-optional has seen some significant firsts among other kinds of institutions. Last year, Worcester Polytechnic Institute became the first competitive science and engineering oriented university to go SAT-optional. In its first year with the new policy, WPI saw increases in the high school grades of applicants, as well as applications from female and minority students. And in May, Wake Forest University announced it would go SAT-optional. Wake is No. 30 on the U.S. News & World Report list of top national universities and however much most educators may dispute the meaning of that list, it is influential with many prospective students, and this marks the first time that an institution that high on the list for universities has ever dropped its standardized testing requirement.

An undercurrent of the new NACAC report is that colleges have been facing pressure -- from U.S. News rankings, which it criticizes for using scores as a criterion in its rankings -- to pay more attention to test scores at a time that a growing body of evidence suggests test scores aren't needed.

The report cites NACAC surveys of colleges on factors that are given "considerable importance" in admissions decisions. Over the last decade, more colleges are reporting test scores in that category, while the importance of grades in college preparatory courses has dropped slightly.

Colleges Attributing 'Considerable Importance' to Admissions Factors

Factor 1995 2000 2005
Grades in college-prep courses/strength of curriculum 80% 78% 74%
Admission test scores 47% 58% 59%
Essay 21% 20% 23%
Class rank 39% 34% 31%
Extracurricular activities 7% 7% 8%

Testing officials haven't been able to respond to the NACAC report, which still hasn't been officially released. But the College Board has repeatedly released reports that it says show the value of the SAT. The most recent studies -- focused on recent changes in the SAT -- came out in June and were hailed by the College Board as evidence of great success. But the reports found no real change in the SAT's predictive value after all the changes were made to the test.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Dramatic Challenge to SAT and ACT

  • Using tests more relevant to alignment
  • Posted by Cliff Adelman , Senior Associate at Institute for Higher Education Policy on September 22, 2008 at 6:40am EDT
  • It's about time we abandoned tests of general learned abilities---the scores on which are determined far more by the quality of family dinner table conversation starting at age 2 than anything that happens in school---and the tyranny they exercise in the propaganda of education numbers.

    But if we want to increase the odds that students with actually graduate, and not merely earn decent 1st year GPAs (which isn't the reason you went to college), subject matter tests provide not only a decent assessment of "college readiness," but also assist in the much-sought alignment of curriculum so that, in effect, the last high school exam becomes the first college assessment. There's nothing wrong with teaching to a good test if that test provides a clear line to the next level of challenge in a field. We're also less likely to have to repeat curricular material in biology, U.S. history, pre-calculus, etc., and more likely to drive improvements in secondary school offerings (opportunity-to-learn) and instruction. Other countries do it, and their students do not suffer from the framework.

  • A Canadian perspective on test scores
  • Posted by Clayton Smith , Vice-Provost, Students & Registrar at University of Windsor on September 22, 2008 at 7:30am EDT
  • As someone who has worked in college/university admissions in both the U.S. and Canada, the focus on the SAT/ACT in the U.S. is of interest to me. In most 4-year American colleges, the SAT/ACT is either required or optional. The opposite is true here in Canada where no institution that I am aware of has such a policy. Yet, graduates of Canadian and American institutions share some of the same professional accreditations and graduates from each country are considered to have a comparable credential. I believe the reason for the SAT/ACT no longer exists; or at least not for most institutions and most admission decisions. There is no valid educational reason to continue requiring American high school juniors and seniors to sit for this test when a GPA for a well-focused subset of college preparatory courses will achieve the same degree of predictability for student success.

  • Adelman Issues -- Equity in Enrollment
  • Posted by Jerry Pattengale , Assistant Provost for Scholarship and Public Engagement at Indiana Wesleyan University on September 22, 2008 at 8:15am EDT
  • Scott, Thanks for a glimpse of this important forthcoming report. I'd also note that Ed St. John's research on equity in enrollment access lends much to this study. While interviewing him for my Magna webinar on retention and millennials, Ed was rather articulate about his research team's findings that SAT scores cannot be taken prima facie, that students with a lower math score (600 instead of 700) might actually show more aptitude due to scoring at that level even though their schools did not have pre-Calculus (Ed is now at Un. of Mich. in the Algo Chair of Ed.). Also, on the same broadcast Paul Gore (formerly with ACT) made strong points about leveraging data for inherently good reasons, and not giving in to what Adelman (in his vintage biting taste of sensible wisdom) calls "tyranny in the exercise in propaganda of education numbers." Scott and Doug, I'd love to see you host a webinar interviewing Cliff, Ed., Paul and a mélange of enrollment officers on this very issue. Paul also shared that with ACT we have a test that is perhaps our best longevity study of showing grade inflation, as the basic content hasn’t changed, and yet the high school GPA’s for the same scores as a decade ago have risen significantly (Paul is now at Un. of Utah). Thanks for the article. JP

  • testing
  • Posted by Robert J. Massa , Vice President at Dickinson College on September 22, 2008 at 9:20am EDT
  • As long as colleges are so concerned about their position in the USNews rankings, SAT scores will be used. I represent a college that made standardizied testing optional in 1996, but with 85% of our students submitting scores, we report those submitted scores to USNews and cite them in our publications, as do the other "selective" liberal arts colleges cited in your article.

    For many, standardized test scores have become a proxy for institutional quality (the higher the scores, the more selective the college so the "better" it must be) -- even though research has demonstrated time and again that selectivity and quality of the experience are NOT related.

    So, not being judgemental because my institution is also in the "game," until USNews and others eliminate SAT scores as a factor in the rankings -- which influence the public's perception of quality -- standardized testing will not go away.

    Further, as long as students with higher SAT scores have a better chance of getting in to selective colleges, schools that offer non-need based scholarships will not eliminate the "minimum SAT score" to qualify for a non-need award -- Why? Because so-called academic scholarships are NOT a reward for excellent performance but a tactic (an expensive one, I might add) to change a student's choice from college A to college B -- and students with higher scores have more choices.
    Until we stop bribe-based discounting, or until we stop using tests altogether (neither of which will happen in my lifetime, I am sure), we will continue to use test cut-offs for so called "academic sccholarships."

    Robert J. Massa
    Dickinson College

  • SAT versus Grades
  • Posted by Meredith on September 22, 2008 at 10:01am EDT
  • Until we have national standards for high school grades or exit exams, as is the case in places like England and Canada, or until all high schools offer most APs or the IB curriculum, we need a standardized measure of performance for our applicants. Not every high school is known to every college. And in writing their recommendations, counselors may overlook the fact that students have challenged themselves in difficult courses. An A grade doesn't mean very much these days, but a 700 in SAT Critical Reading does.

  • Good move
  • Posted by Patrick Mattimore , Teacher on September 22, 2008 at 10:20am EDT
  • I generally like what I read in a preliminary perusal of the NACAC report, except for the fact that the committee seems to have lumped together the ACT and the SAT I tests. As far as I can tell, that seems to be what colleges that have discontinued the SAT as a mandatory part of admissions have done.
    The NACAC report makes clear that the authors believe colleges should be looking more closely at whether subject type tests (AP, IB, and SAT IIs) might better serve their admissions' needs. I'm not sure why the authors have decided the ACT is more like the SAT I, rather than the subject tests it praises.

  • A long time coming
  • Posted by Peter Sacks , author on September 22, 2008 at 10:30am EDT
  • There's noting new in the NACAC report that we haven't already known for years regarding the weak predictive validity of admissions tests relative to their quite powerful ability to reinforce and amplify inequalities of educational opportunity.

    That said, the report promises to be a watershed event, simply because it was produced by a widely representative commission of educators and higher education leaders, led by the dean of admissions and financial aid at Harvard, William Fitzsimmons.

    The writing is on the wall. In time, Harvard itself will make test scores optional for undergraduate admissions. Its Ivy League competitors will follow suit. The University of Michigan and other elite public universities will be next to fall.

    U.S. News will fight, of course. The College Board will get downright nasty. In the past, elite institutions would have chimed in with their banal utterances that test scores, while not perfect, are the best we have to predict college success.

    The clothing on that old emperor is in tatters, shredded by years of mounting evidence to the contrary. Long live the SAT. The SAT is dead.

  • Does it matter if it's optional
  • Posted by Phil on September 22, 2008 at 11:00am EDT
  • How does one balance the statement by Massa at Dickinson and others that, even though tests are optional, the operational reality is that SAT still matters a lot there.

    Thus, if Harvard and others follow by making SAT/ACT optional, and 85% still submit, and Harvard still reports to U.S. News, what has changed?

    The emperor's clothes may be tattered, but to a status-obsessed population led on by a smoke and mirrors higher education policy, who cares?

  • SAT/ACT
  • Posted by William See on September 22, 2008 at 11:00am EDT
  • This kind of study is long overdue. Many thanks to all those who hae persisted in making these new findings available to the general public on this site.

  • sat
  • Posted by isaac abdul haqq on September 22, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • States should have their own assessment tests, not admission tests, for entrance to both public institutions as well as private institutions that take state funds. While I hate to sound like a ‘states rights’ Republican on this one, states do run the schools, and thus should have sole responsibility for admission criteria in their states. Faculty departments, not billion dollar test companies, should set the standard for entry. It’s time for education community to rally and “Ricco Act” the College Board Mafia.

  • Posted by miller mcpherson on September 22, 2008 at 11:40am EDT
  • Well, it's clearly time for an experiment. Institutions deciding that standardized tests aren't useful should just begin taking students from the bottom, rather than the top. Think of it! An entire Harvard cohort from the bottom 1% of the SAT! A revolutionary way to show that the SAT makes no difference...

  • Standardized tests
  • Posted by Dr. F. Gump on September 22, 2008 at 6:20pm EDT
  • Ironic that only six months ago, everyone was arguing about the need for and benefit of a standard exit exam or other proof of learning.

    What 80% of respondents here seem to be arguing is, that all high schools are equal to others?

    Why is it, when this discussion arises (every four months) that nobody in the discussion is willing or able to talk about a strong-positive correlation between ACT/SAT, high school rank, high school GPA, and success in the first year of college?

    One person above (think it was the article author) does manage to spit out the word "correlation" - whatever that means, but otherwise, high school "A" is equal to high school "Z" and top ten is equal to top 50 if HS GPA is strong?

    The colleges that are skipping the SAT (and maybe ACT) or that wish to ignore one additional bit of confirming evidence aren't shrinking in first-year enrollment; or are they?

  • Admissions Tests
  • Posted by Jerry in LA on September 23, 2008 at 9:41am EDT
  • Here it is in a nutshell -
    “the commission says that colleges must seriously consider the possibility that standardized tests are not equally valid for all groups of people. Because Asian and white students, on average, receive higher scores than black and Latino students, many educators have worried that testing limits minority enrollments.”

    Let's be real - If there were no significant difference in the test scores for different ethnic/racial groups, we would not be having this conversation. This is all about the Higher Education community’s great crusade of ‘Diversity’. Thus, when minorities don’t do as well on standardized tests, do away with the tests. That solves the problem!

    And guess what? When minority enrollments don’t increase enough (whatever that is), then high school grades and rank will be found to be a poor admission tools, and we will be back here in a few years debating the next great admissions move.

  • Graduate School Exams
  • Posted by Callie Cary on September 23, 2008 at 9:50am EDT
  • Now if only graduate schools would take a closer look at the correlation between GRE/MAT test scores and a student's ability to succeed in grad. school.

  • Standardized Tests! Have I got Stories!
  • Posted by R. West on September 23, 2008 at 10:30am EDT
  • When I graduated from high school, I applied for admissions to a private liberal arts college. I was denied admittance based on a standardized test I had taken in the 8th Grade (an IQ test at that). So, I joined the Navy. After I completed my service,I enrolled in a junior college, earned an AA with a 3.67 GPA. I then transferred to Indiana University and earned a BA in History with a 3.47 GPA.

    Next, I decided a Masters Degree would be nice. So I enrolled at Indiana State University. Had to take a GRE scored around 500. Earned a M.ED. with a 3.94 GPA. Then, I wanted a second Master Degree so I went back to ISU Earned a Masters of Science. It was supposed to be an MA. But at that time ISU had an interesting language requirement. You had to demonstrate the ability to read another language. The way this was accomplished was to take a class and then, you guessed it, pass a standardized test. I received an A in the class and believe me, I could read French. Took the standardized test 3 times; never did pass it. So I was awarded an M.S instead of an MA.

    I just finished my Ph.D. at Indiana State. As an entrance requirement, I had to take the GRE again. An interesting thing happened; four degrees later and 20 years of teaching experience, I scored lower than ever on the GRE (450 on verbal). Fortunately because I had earned previous degrees at ISU the score did not keep me out. I completed all of my course work with "A"s and finished my dissertation in August.
    The point of this pedantic tirade is not to impress anyone with my academic record. Rather, my experience is just one of many examples that demonstrate how flawed standardized testing is. It is about time that the decision makers in higher education acknowledge what we have known for years. Standardized testing is a terrible, completely invalid and unreliable way to predict academic success. Of course, I am not surprised that the testing agencies disagree. They stand to lose millions of dollars if higher education decides to just say "no" to standardized testing.

  • Enough Nibbling, Anyone?
  • Posted by DFS on September 23, 2008 at 3:16pm EDT
  • Let's just keep chipping away at ANY threshold. That way, we can do away with the concept of Threshold.

    This is of utmost importance, now . . . without thresholds, we can just do what we want.

    It's just NOT FAIR to have thresholds. After all, something happened TO me, not because OF me.

    Dial back the rhetoric and just rely on the old thresholds. Haven't we "progressed" enough in our enforcement (via free lawyers striving enforcing the existing laws) in order to SEE fulfillment of our past generations' legacies?

  • SATs Important
  • Posted by Deb on September 24, 2008 at 12:55pm EDT
  • As the parent of a high-school student, who was in the 'gifted program' in our school system, I'd like to speak to the benefit of SAT scores.

    In my son's case, his GPA is not the greatest (3.0). For him, his SATs are more indicative of his learning ability.

    While it may seem counter-intuitive, often the brightest kids don't have the highest GPAs because they aren't adequately challenged.

    I'd hate to see SATs totally eliminated as a factor in college acceptance. Also, my understanding is that SATs are given a relatively small weight and a student's GPA is the predominant factor in this decision-making process.

    I do agree that much more is needed to occur within our high schools' curriculum, greater standardization is critical, and any changes to make the PSAT a better assessment tool are also important.

  • Posted by Greg Tropea at Cal State U, Chico on October 2, 2008 at 5:05am EDT
  • It should be like this: If you do well on a standardized test, that gets you credit. If you do poorly on the standardized test but well in some other category of achievement that matters, that gets you credit. People who can achieve in some way can find a way to succeed in higher education; that's as much threshold as you really need to give someone the chance of a lifetime.

  • Posted by M.L. on November 19, 2008 at 4:45pm EST
  • Hello, all. I thought Michael Offerman, former president of Capella University does a great job of expanding on this issue on his blog: http://www.theother85percent.com/?p=77