Last week, seven college students from around the United States were arrested for allegedly cheating on their SAT exam. How did they do it? They paid a friend to take the test for them. Their friend rose to the occasion and obtained near perfect scores for all of them, according to MSNBC. They were caught when someone noticed that the SAT scores of some of these individuals were not congruent with what was expected of them, based on their GPA.
The Educational Testing Service (ETS), administers the SAT and checks IDs of everyone entering the exam; but the students were able to obtain fake IDs for each instance. This has led to various discussions on raising security of the SAT and other standardized college admissions tests. Proposed solutions include, submitting a photograph of each student along with their test. Although this would address the issue of students who provide fake IDs, what would the ETS do about identical twins, or siblings who look alike? Should students be asked to disclose that information? Does the ETS need to know such personal information about students?
The fact that the students were willing to pay up to $2,500 for someone to take the SAT in their place, suggests that a great importance in placed on this exam. But why is that the case. The SAT only captures a picture of four hours of a students’ high school career (most likely on an early Saturday morning), probably spent sitting in some strange classroom they have never seen before, surrounds by incredibly stressed out strangers. Why would a college or university believe that is snapshot is the best way to predict college success? As someone who let my anxiety get the best of me during the GRE and literally ran out of time, because of my inability to think clearly; I believe there has to be a better way for colleges and universities to examine the intellectual abilities of students.
There is research that shows a relationship between scores and college success; but there has been research that demonstrates stronger relationships exist between variables other than standardized test scores and college success. Daniel Goleman has done research that found a stronger relationship between optimism levels of first year students better predict grade point average after the first year than SAT scores did. Why then are institutions of higher education not also evaluating personality characteristics of their applicants, in addition to or instead of scores on standardized exams?
I concur with Amy that there are other and stronger relationships between variables and student succes in college than those invoked by standardized test scores.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to your final question I guess there is no simple answer. However, there are data that indicate that the educational testing service industry is a monopoly that hurts education.
For instance, Educational Testing Service (ETS), although founded as a non-profit organization, and therefore exempt from paying federal corporate income tax on many of its operations is identified as “the world’s largest private educational testing and measurement organization, operating on an annual budget of approximately $1.1 billion in 2007.”
I do not understand how ETS continues to qualify as a non-profit. This distinction should be reserved to organizations that are genuinely non-profit.
I believe there are many well established interests in the corporate testing industry. Thus, an adoption of other forms of evaluation and assessment for students is not very likely to occur in the near future.
Thanks Kim for your post. I have been asking the same question for years about admissions to higher education.
ReplyDeleteBeing someone with a learning disability that limits my performance on standardized tests, throughout my life I wished that there was another way to show and demonstrate my capabilities to be successful in college and graduate school.
Another question I am constantly asking along the same lines... what gets someone a job? There ability to interview well or their technical ability of their area or discipline? I believe that a majority of the time, employers are looking for soft skills (ability to work in a team, critically think about things, problem solve, etc.) rather than do they know the skills necessary for the job. I have heard often on hiring committees and friends hiring outside of student affairs, "I can train them on x skill. I want to know if they are going to be an assets to this team."
Why don't colleges and universities take the same approach? (I know why, time, money, interviews are subjective, etc.) Currently, their is a strong push to create well rounded college graduates to step out into the work force. But if we are not recruiting through well rounded practices, what type of student are we turning out into the work force?
I understand why colleges put an emphasis on standardized tests to an extent; we are able to see if students know some basic knowledge, how they write, and how students perform under pressure. I do not think these are the only skills we need to look at in order to base a student's admissions on though. The score on an SAT or ACT should be a minor influence, not a deciding factor; however, I have a hard time believing that standardized tests are worthless when it come to telling colleges about students and their capability. I'm sure there is some research that shows students success in college related to their SAT/ACT scores. Maybe I'll do a little more digging to see if I can find anything.
ReplyDeleteAldo, you brought up an interesting point about the corporate testing industry that I had never known. I think that explains a little why there is such a strong emphasis on standardized tests and why there are no signs of them going away. Thank you for sharing that!
Although I also blogged about this SAT cheating scandal, after reading some of your comments and another post on the issue a few other things came to mind.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking of how much time I spent studying for the SAT's. Looking back, I think that I could have used these hours in a more valuable way, for example reading and doing assignments for other classes. Much of my Junior year was in preparation for this test. I did have the opportunity to attend an SAT prep classes that were of additional cost to my parents. Are low income students at even more of a disadvantage if they cannot afford additional tutoring? I know the class I took "guaranteed" a better score after taking the class. Any thoughts?