Albert Einstein once said that “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” Naturally, expecting a fish to climb a tree is both ridiculous and impossible, as is judging a squirrel on its ability to swim, or requiring a dog to fly. How is measuring the intelligence of every high school student –– comparing ceramicist to writer to photographer to mathlete –– with a single standardized test any different? As far back as 1845, standardized tests have been an inherent part of the American education system. In 1926, Carl C. Brigham and the college board administered the first Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to high school students. Since then, a high score on the test has burgeoned into an internationally recognized symbol of academic achievement. Students who meet their target scores are likely offered a golden ticket into their first choice college, while those who fall short are often barred from their dream school. Regardless of the fact that standardized college entrance exams can be useful in providing a uniform scale of comparison for students across the nation, these tests ultimately encumber students with a singular definition of success, and hold far too much economic incentive to be considered a fair gateway for college acceptance.
The SAT undoubtedly allows schools to mitigate an overwhelmingly large pool of applicants with a set of uniform numbers, and compare students with one another without the nuances of the holistic review. These tests are standardized for a reason: not all teachers, classes, and grading scales are created equal. It would be unfair to compare students’ grade point averages between schools, as there would be no way to fairly account for the factors of variability. The SAT was created to counter these disparities, work as an equalizer, and function as an objective measure of intelligence. Although there are exceptions, David Hambrick suggests that, in general, “the SAT works for its intended purpose — predicting success in college” (Source E). While schools can only compare applicants’ classes and grades to those of the other students from their school, the SAT is able to provide a baseline comparison for all students on an international scale. Furthermore, a holistic review is far too time consuming for every applicant, causing many schools to turn to SAT scores as a system of prioritization for the applications that they read. Students with higher scores can be automatically flagged within the admissions process, and given more attention and consideration for admission over those who are below their cutoff. Additionally, SAT scores “are stable across time and not easily increased through training, coaching or practice” (Source E). The level of difficulty that students face in raising their score is an attempt by the College Board to minimize the influence of socioeconomic status on test scores. While grades can be raised relatively easily with tutoring, and students with means are able to purchase educational resources, the SAT is designed to avoid this problem. Nevertheless, what Hambrick fails to address is that the test does not, in fact, adequately remove income as a factor, and cannot take alternative definitions of intelligence into account.
While SAT tests are used for college admission, the profitability of the test and the testing industry has given rise to alterior motives for their prominence in the US, and caused the priority to become the success of businesses rather than the success of students. Like any good business, the College Board works to ensure that they turn the biggest profit possible each year by selling their product –– the SAT. The problem is, their consumers are only offered the option to buy. With the exception of a few test-optional schools, standardized testing is a requisite for gaining an offer of admission. This means that any student who may want to attend college must go through the testing process –– the importance of the test is only amplified if their college of choice is out of a student’s target range. According to Rainesford Alexandra, “parents [spend] $13.1 billion on test prep” every year in the United States, and all because of the pressure put on students to perform well (Source A). The SAT is undoubtedly important in the modern college admissions process, however, it is an exclusive marker of success that gives an inherent advantage to students from higher-income backgrounds. Tools to improve SAT scores are abundant –– there are books and guides, group classes, and even one-on-one tutoring from experts. Yet, these are not resources that are available to every student. Like taking the SAT, they cost a significant amount of money, only there are no fee waivers available upon request. The result of the emphasis on testing in the US is that “the achievement gap in the United States between high- and low-income students has widened, even as gaps along lines of race and ethnicity have narrowed” (Source C). The testing industry is thriving at the expense of low-income students; the College Board states that SAT scores cannot be manipulated through studying, strategy, and practice with experts, yet the success of the industry says otherwise. It is common to hear about students who raised their scores hundreds of points with a miracle tutor, and the privileges of disposable income extend far beyond the actual window that students are preparing for the test. Students who grow up surrounded by books, or who attend schools where they are prepared for the test years in advance, are given preparation that students from lower-income backgrounds are not. The correlation between affluence and test scores with the current system is fundamental, and has given rise to an implicitly biased college application process in which students with different economic circumstances must all compete in order to fit a restrictive academic ideal.
The nature of standardized testing forces students to mold themselves into a narrow definition of intelligence, and neglects to acknowledge the limitations of such a system. The result is a test that is particularly favorable for students who are good at memorization, and fast to recall information, in lieu of true academic achievement. Tests, such as the SAT, have been used to measure intelligence for over 90 years. In his article, “A Tyranny of Standardized Tests,” Botstein argues that “testing is primitive and out of date,” for how can a binary, machine-graded exam serve as one of the most significant factors in a supposedly ‘holistic’ college application (Source B)? It simply cannot. Furthermore, tests like the SAT emphasize factual recall and memorization over deep understanding and reflection. In our current system, mental celerity is mistaken for true comprehension of important concepts, and different learning styles cannot be accommodated. It is common knowledge that people learn best from analyzing their mistakes, however, the process of SAT testing and grading is not conducive to such improvement: “The most egregious aspect of our mania for testing is that pupils never find out what they got wrong and why they got it wrong” (Source B). By designing a test in which the correlation between studying, practice, and score improvement is intentionally small, the SAT fails to give students the ability to highlight their skills of perseverance and work ethic. Not every student can achieve at a high level without a significant amount of hard work; to use the SAT as a marker for college admissions excludes diligent students with the potential for success from receiving offers of admission, in favor of those able to score well due to a base level of so-called intelligence. Additionally, to require students to meet this abrasively arbitrary definition of a ‘smart student’ is to discredit manifestations of intelligence that cannot be captured by the SAT, yet still contribute to college communities in less conventional ways. The cartoon in Source D furthers this notion by highlighting the irony within the testing process. It depicts students getting tested on the ability of their heads fitting into different shapes, with the caption saying “The intelligent way to test intelligence” is a marker of the shallow degree to which the SAT truly captures students’ intellect (Source D). The redundancy of the caption satirizes the tests’ claim to measure astuteness by making its supporters seem less than intelligent themselves. Overall, the test, and those who rely on it for admissions purposes, reduce students’ accomplishments to an impersonal score, thereby devaluing individuality while instead encouraging an arbitrary accretion of facts for the purpose of recitation for a test of exaggerated importance.
Decade after decade, standardized college entrance exams have proven to be detrimental to our society through their capitalistic incentive, and outdated idea of intelligence. The testing industry perpetuates the educational setbacks in our society today, and it is past time to expunge the inequalities that riddle this system. Despite recent efforts on behalf of the College Board to remodel the SAT to align the test with real high school curricula, an overwhelming body of data suggests that it is not enough. The evidence of score inequalities due to socioeconomic stratification, inflexible definitions of intelligence, and a greedy industry supporting the test’s ever-inflating significance, the only recent progress seen in the testing industry is the phenomenon of schools opting to become test-optional. The industry remains strong, and while one mustn't overlook this progress, students must look toward a future in which test-optional is the standard.