Search News


Browse Archives

News

Giving Choice and Taking It Away

January 7, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It's all about the students. That's the message that the College Board has been sending about its controversial Score Choice program since it was announced in June. That's not quite the message the board has been sending colleges -- which are being explicitly offered options by the College Board that would limit student choice over scores or result in admissions offices having score information that students might not want reviewed.

Score Choice, as announced to the public, allows students who take the SAT multiple times to decide how many and which of their scores will be visible to colleges. In the past, students had to submit all scores, so that it was visible to colleges if a student obtained a high score only after taking the test a number of times and (in many cases) undergoing intensive test tutoring.

Much of the initial criticism of the policy focused on whether this policy would simply give another edge to wealthier students, who can afford test prep services and the costs of repeatedly taking the SAT. While the College Board waives the SAT fee for low-income students, they are allowed only two tries without paying. Those willing to pay may take the exam again and again.

When the story broke, College Board officials framed the issue as being about relieving student stress. Laurence Bunin, senior vice president of the SAT, told the Los Angeles Times: “Students were telling us [that] the ability to have more control over their scores would make the test experience more comfortable and less stressful.... We can do that without in any way diminishing the value and integrity of the SAT.” That's a line he's been repeating, telling The New York Times last week that the new policy "simply allows students to put their best foot forward,” and lets students "feel very comfortable going into the test center because, goodness forbid, if for whatever reason they don’t feel comfortable, it won’t be on their permanent record forever.”

Similar language is used in the information the College Board releases for students. The board says this about Score Choice: "Designed to reduce student stress and improve the test-day experience, the College Board has approved Score Choice, an important change to the current SAT score-reporting policy. This new policy will give students the option to choose the SAT scores by sitting (test date) and SAT Subject Test scores by individual test that they send to colleges, at no additional cost." Later, the board notes that colleges can still "set their own test requirements," but it doesn't say that the College Board is specifically giving them easy ways to deviate from the public face of Score Choice.

On a separate Web page for colleges -- not publicized by the College Board -- the association asks admissions offices to "keep in mind that Score Choice was developed to reduce student test-taking stress." But among the five options it gives colleges is the one it is boasting about eliminating -- where colleges receive every score (No. 5 if you follow the link at the beginning of this paragraph.) Further, only two of the remaining four items feature language requiring colleges to only consider the highest scores visible (No. 2 and No. 4). These two policies have colleges pledge to update applicant records every time a higher score arrives, so that the only tests visible upon review would be those on which student scores are highest. Options No. 1 and No. 3 notably do not contain that pledge. The fact that these options are being offered to colleges has not been publicized to students by the College Board.

The College Board press office declined to make senior officials available to discuss this Web page, saying that with people just having come back from vacations, they couldn't find time to talk. But the College Board did issue a statement that said, in its entirety: "Colleges and universities have always set their own admission policies. Score Choice makes these policies clear to students. The College Board has partnered with colleges and universities to help students understand which scores colleges and universities use. Score Choice is an optional feature providing students with the ability to put their best foot forward on test day by submitting the test scores they feel best represent their abilities, in accordance with the scores that a particular college uses. Students told us this feature would reduce their stress and improve the overall testing experience."

Many college admissions counselors -- at the high school and college levels -- have already been coming out against Score Choice, for all kinds of reasons. Admissions counselor listservs have featured numerous calls for going back to the old policy or creating some more uniform way to handle the issue. One admissions blog responded by calling for the SAT to limit students to taking the test once (a move that would cost the College Board a lot of money). Others have been focused on equity issues or the way the test-prep industry may benefit.

But the promotional materials for colleges with the options for colleges raise questions over whether even those who can afford to pay for coaches or for taking the test multiple times will be well served by Score Choice.

Robert Schaeffer, public education director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, a leading critic of the College Board, noted that the information being promoted to colleges is very different from the message being sent to students -- and means that students may or may not in fact have control over their scores. Further, he said that even if students read the materials the College Board is giving college officials, the wording may be confusing and unclear.

"The news, I think, is that neither test takers nor their high school counselors are aware that the College Board is actively assisting admissions offices to undermine the basic thrust of Score Choice by providing tools to limit the options applicants think they are gaining to select which SAT scores will be submitted," Schaeffer said. He called this a "two-faced approach that may curry favor with colleges at the expense of the students who pay for the tests and theoretically own the scores." He added that he didn't think it was an accident that these materials haven't been publicized (students following the various links on the College Board's Web site wouldn't see a link to these options).

What Schaeffer and some critics think the College Board is doing is trying to compete with the ACT, which has been gaining market share on the SAT and which offers an equivalent to Score Choice.

A spokesman for the ACT said via e-mail that it has never marketed its scoring options to colleges and has tried to present the same information to students and colleges about score choice. ACT does not do any marketing to colleges regarding the choice of scores. "Our process is pretty straightforward. Students request that scores from whatever test date they choose be sent to whichever colleges they choose. We send only the scores from that individual test date," he said. "If colleges wanted to see scores from other test dates, they would have to request them from the student, who would, in turn, ask ACT to send them. In other words, we provide 'choice' to students, not to colleges per se."

Schaeffer, who on some issues criticizes the ACT and the College Board, said that, with regard to score choice, ACT was not engaged in the same practices as the College Board. "The ACT memorandum does not contradict their score choice policy in any way -- it simply analyzes the options an institution has in using test results applicants submit," Schaeffer said.

"The College Board, on the other hand, is developing a secret tool to make it possible for admissions offices to override a student's desire to withhold particular scores. The cynicism here is in promoting the virtues of Score Choice to the people who pay for the test and the general public while working behind the scenes to assist another set of stakeholders to undermine it."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Giving Choice and Taking It Away

  • Jettison the SAT
  • Posted by Patrick Mattimore , More College Board Tricks on January 7, 2009 at 8:20am EST
  • An internal memo sent by Bunin and reported in Newsweek lends credence to the idea that the College Board's latest "benevolence" towards students is inspired by the bottom line. More to the point, colleges still require this test, which does a poor job predicting how students will do in college, the only real justification for its use.

    http://www.opednews.com/populum/manage.php?submit=view&storyid=79312

  • nothing to see here...
  • Posted by unimpressed on January 7, 2009 at 9:20am EST
  • I don't get what the problem is. The College Board web page you linked to with the 6 policies is so that colleges can register their admissions policy with College Board. The reason they do that is so that on the Score Choice screen, the student can see what their selected college's policy is and select the right scores to send.

    The student can still choose to send, say, just the highest score from each section to an institution, but that may leave the student's admission portfolio incomplete if the college requires all scores from all dates. Just because College Board will allow students to pick and choose what scores to send doesn't mean that admissions offices across the nation are changing their policies on what scores they require or consider.

  • Posted by EH on January 7, 2009 at 10:05am EST
  • This confirms my initial reaction to all this from back when: This is only going to stress students out more. Plus it's going to advantage those with better finances even more.. not only can they afford the preparatory classes, they can try multiple times. The only motivation I saw from the provider's perspective was as follows: They're doing this to get more business, it gives more incentive to take the test more. Yuck.

  • Posted by Fred Sornce on January 7, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • Let me see if I understand this. College Board lets students have a choice in which scores are sent to colleges. Colleges decide what information they want from applicants. College Board then informs students and colleges of their options.

    This is controversial... how? It's also not terribly dissimilar from what ACT has done for many years. As for College Board using a webpage to inform schools about how the program works, that hardly rises to the level of "marketing" noted in the article.

    It would also be nice to elevate the discussion and see some sources with real educational backgrounds in stories like this. Bob Schaeffer is a good PR man and runs a nice little practice from Florida, but a quick Google of his past work suggests zero expertise in higher education. I'm sure he's a decent fellow but he's frankly no more qualified to analyze college admissions testing than I am to comment on welding.

  • The T-Balling of America
  • Posted by DFS on January 7, 2009 at 1:05pm EST
  • (Thanks, Steve Deucy.)

    Nevermind that standards must be met and kept. More important is how people can game the system.

    This is financially beneficial to all involved. Congratulations!

    But, since there are no longer such things as standards, we are now unable to thwart something as simple as a rocket hurled into our communities, simply because we tried!

    Nevermind what the state of K through 12 Education is already -- we will compensate for this, and hide it, simply by eating up all of those selfish, piggish dollars by obfuscating the actual state of collegiate readiness and intelligence and performance!

    What a great scheme!

  • Posted by Javier Gomes on January 7, 2009 at 1:35pm EST
  • At what point did it become College Board's responsibility to set admissions requirements for colleges? To criticize College Board for offering a service to students and then imply that it is somehow College Board's fault that college's may still want to see additional scores is not just terrible reporting, it is illogical and a completely fallacious argument. This new service was added to give more options to STUDENTS, frankly I am glad colleges still have the ability to set their own admissions criteria.

    Furthermore, I actually did Google Robert Schaeffer to see what he has accomplished in higher education. In a nutshell, absolutely nothing aside from being the media contact for Fair Test ('public education director' was a clever, yet misleading way of saying media contact). It appears he runs a public relations agency out of a basement in a Florida home and rather than listing 'higher education' as an industry he serves, he serves 'social change organizations' and has never contributed anything of note to higher education journals or policy. It seems the reporter here opted to find a source he knew would agree with his unfair assessment, rather than a source who was actually involved in higher education issues.

  • Posted by EM on January 7, 2009 at 2:56pm EST
  • This article is not up to Inside Higher Ed's usual high standards and the headline is particularly misleading.

    Choice is not being taken away from the students -- in fact, it will be an even more informed choice than the student has with ACT "score choice." The College Board will be providing a service that no one else has ever provided --showing in one place how/which test scores are considered by individual colleges and universities in the admissions process. Do a little searching on college web sites and you'll have a hard time finding that information - -best sitting? Best sub-scores? Average all sittings? Generally, a student can't find out without talking with an admissions counselor personally and even then may get a vague response.

    Nothing has really changed -- the colleges that "require" reports of all sittings will never know if they receive them all -- just as they have never known that with ACT scores. The student owns the test score and will have control over when and where it's sent -- just as has always been the case with ACT. It's up to the student to comply if a college requires all sittings (now, why a college would require all sittings should really be the point of all this controversy, quite frankly -- that's the more controversial topic and would make for the more interesting story, IMHO).

    It's amazing that the furor from a few people is being directed at the College Board over this issue has never been similarly directed toward ACT. I have to agree that Inside Higher Ed should have contacted some educational professionals for this article. While interesting and sometimes entertaining, the NACAC listerve is NOT representative of widepsread views on this or any other topic.

  • Posted by Alyssa Bonk on January 7, 2009 at 3:46pm EST
  • Scott Jaschick's January 7 article on the SAT Score Choice program is one of the worst examples of sensationalized non-news ever published by Inside Higher Ed. The story seeks to falsely manufacture controversy where none exists and relies on suspect sources to make the author?s case.

    The facts are rather simple and entirely benign. Students have the choice of which scores to provide admissions officers and schools have the choice to determine their own admission requirements. The author presumably knows that colleges are fre e to set their own policies so the attempt to turn this simple program, which is no different from other programs offered by ACT, into something untoward suggests a strong an agenda driven bias that has no place in a publication like Inside Higher Ed.

    As for the article?s suspect sources, Robert Schaeffer from Fair Test is no authority on education policy or practice. As the owner of a public relations firm operated out of his Florida home, he has distinguished himself through his work for organizations including International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Families Against Incinerator Risk and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. This hardly represents the requisite bona fides for responsible commentary on college admissions testing.

    There are many legitimate issues in the debate over standardized testing, but this sort of sloppy reporting and poor sourcing has no legitimate place in the discussion.

  • CB previously offered Score choice
  • Posted by Patrick Mattimore on January 7, 2009 at 3:55pm EST
  • What the defender's of the College Board's new policy seem to be unaware of is that the CB previously offered Score Choice to students who took SAT Subject tests. They discontinued that policy six or seven years ago.
    As reported in a story in The New York Times published this past week, a representative of the College Board said at that time “that ending Score Choice would be fairer to low-income and minority students, who did not have the resources to keep taking the test.”
    So whether or not one comes down on the side of the new policy, it's important to understand that the idea that the CB is doing this to benefit students is a load of hogwash.

  • Posted by Kathleen on January 7, 2009 at 5:35pm EST
  • If the College Board's goal is, as they say, to reduce student stress, they have chosen a strange way to go about it. After reading the article, checking out all the links, and looking over the comments, my eyes are spinning and I have a headache. Who is in charge here? Help me differentiate between dogs and tails, please. Such confusion,such a mishmash of choices, can only create more desperation in already desperate students and parents, driving them to pour even more money into a bloated, greedy industry.

    Fortunately, when their brains subside from a boil to a low simmer, these would-be test-taker marionettes can turn to fairtest.org and find a list of schools that de-emphasize the SAT. How refreshing. And how totally bizarre that some posters chose to put down Robert Schaeffer by mentioning that he works from his basement. He can work from a park bench or his car...who cares? It's called telecommuting and it's growing, just like the number of schools that are ditching the SAT. And since when, by the way, is it considered acceptable to evaluate someone's experience and expertise on the basis of a Google search?

    Curiouser and curiouser. Lewis Carroll, come back. We've got some great material for you.

  • Posted by Justin Greshawn on January 7, 2009 at 5:35pm EST
  • So College Board is developing a “secret tool” to override the desires of students, eh? Very interesting. I think there were some College Board people on the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963. And I’m pretty sure College Board has hangar space in Area 51. Oh – and a buddy told me the 1969 moon landing was actually filmed at College Board headquarters.

    What in the world is IHE doing running tin foil hat stuff like this? This is a new low.

  • True Opportunity
  • Posted by Leslie Horton , Assistant Professor at Delta State on January 9, 2009 at 7:05am EST
  • In 1967 there were no review sessions in our area of rural Mississippi and both the SAT and ACT were "one-shot' opportunities.

    In spite of these "stresses," at least 7 of the students in my graduating class of less than 70 scored above 30 on the ACT. The one student who took the SAT scored over 1200.
    Why?

    The one predictor of student success that has proven valid across the board is teacher quality. Our teachers would have been professionals in areas other than education had they had the financial opportunities afforded today's students.

    Also, our parents took the teacher's side which meant if you were in trouble at at school you were in BIG trouble at home.

    There are certainly other reasons our class was so successful, but these are at least two reasons that need to be considered in this debate.

  • CEEB
  • Posted by suzy hallock-bannigan , director of counseling services at woodstock union high school on January 21, 2009 at 6:31pm EST
  • It's easy to understand why the list of score-optional colleges on fairtest.com is growing.

  • ?????
  • Posted by NOPROBLEMHERE , ????? on January 29, 2009 at 6:30pm EST
  • I dont understand why people are getting so upset about the new score choice policy that college board is implementing.In the article they say that it is giving the wealthier side of our society the upper hand but it truly is not. Students who can not financialy afford to send score out after their scores are released, have the option to recieve up to 4 fee waivers( 2 for SAT and 2 for SAT subject test), which waives the cost of the test.In addition they get either the QAS/SAS to improve their score the next time around. Then on top of that, with each registration they get up to 4 score reports(included with regular registration) to send scores to colleges....and THEN they also get the option of getting an additional 4 flexible score reports which means they can still send out more free score reports at any time. For a person who is wealthy, for the cost of everything a student who is not financially fortunate will get , they will have to pay between $250 - $300 just for those particular items. Not to even get into the fact that the lower income also have the option to have college application fees waived etc.Another thing i wanted to address is, i do not see the problems with the options that score choice alone offers.Even if some selective schools wanted to view all of your scores, why complain? You used to have no choice at all.Colleges have their reasons for doing what they are doing. But it gives you a better idea on what the schools have already been doing and what they require from you. making the whole process much more simple and more clarified.
    eg: If a college request with score choice they want the highest score , chances are even when you sent all your score before, they only picked the highest. This feature is free of charge and still you people complain? Give me a break!