On Standardized Testing
Alec Kretch is the founder of OpenClass — easily build mastery-based review assignments around your content for free at OpenClass.ai.
The University of California has removed ACT/SAT scores as an application requirement, they announced earlier this week. This got me thinking about the purpose of standardized tests, and whether they serve a good or evil presence in society.
On a micro level, standardized tests aim to assess aptitude. Will student X succeed at college Y? On a macro level, standardized tests aim to assess instruction. How well is school X teaching subject Y?
This metric is important to college admission officers because it is perhaps the only black-and-white datapoint they have. Is playing the saxophone more meaningful than playing volleyball? I’m not sure. Is a 35 ACT score better than a 27 ACT score? Yes.
Assessing aptitude is rarely an easy task: Companies are constantly looking for ways to hire better. The military is constantly looking for ways to recruit better. Professional sports teams are constantly looking for ways to scout better.
In education, standardized test scores often set students on a difficult-to-change life track. It seems almost dystopian:
The score you get determines the quality of education you can receive.
What?
Further, if you come from a more privileged background, you can hire a tutor to prepare you for the exam and take the exam multiple times.
Hmm…
Quickly, the wealth gap in education increases: Wealthier students score better on standardized tests, go to more prestigious universities, and get better jobs.
Making matters worse, standardized test scores turn learning into a competition. Scores are all relative. I do better if you do worse. This creates cut-throat educational environments and is the antithesis of what education should be.
Peaceful. Stress-free. Learning-focused.
I applaud the University of California Board of Regents for their decision to remove standardized tests from their acceptance criteria, but this should be viewed as just one step toward fixing the systemic and cultural issues that exist within education.
One pressing concern is the lack of a viable replacement for standardized tests. The golden ticket has been taken away from naturally gifted students that may not blow you away with their extracurriculars or essays. And, while the wealth advantage would be reduced, removing a piece of the equation does not ease the question of “will this student succeed here?”
An ideal solution, to me, is one that could uninvasively track student progress over time of many topics presented in different mediums, and not be impacted by geographical or socioeconomic factors. (Spoiler: I think artificial intelligence can be greatly helpful here.) In addition to informing the decisions of admission officers, students could use this data to determine their optimal life paths.
Standardized tests or not, one reality is that academic institutions have a finite capacity. As much as Stanford may want to offer admission to 300,000 students, that likely is not feasible. The devaluation of prestige and increasing viability of alternative learning solutions should level the playing field in the job market, paving way for improved aptitude assessments to empower students to make decisions in their best interests.
While standardized tests have good intentions of solving a hard problem, their consequences can be evil. Replacing them with all-encompassing alternatives can reduce competition and toxicity from education and ensure learning is about learning.
