OHara 1 Michael OHara Professor Afghani WRD 104 2/14/11 Validity of the SAT Most students in the United

States take the Student Aptitude Test (SAT) as part of the process for getting admission into college. A students SAT score is considered the most important part of a students college application next to grade point average. In the past decade there have been a lot of issues surrounding the SAT. Some believe that students can potentially have an advantage over others for various reasons when it comes to taking the SAT. If this is the case, then it could be argued that the SAT is not necessarily a fair way of determining a students capabilities in a college setting. Students have fallen victim to the flaws of the SAT test by systematic error in the past. Some colleges are now endorsing a test-option policy where the students will have other requirements to fulfill as an alternative to submitting SAT scores. The socioeconomic background of a student can play a significant role in the scoring of a student on a standardized test. The quality of the initial education students receive sets them up for success or failure in regard to taking the SAT. Some students have been able to cheat on the SAT test as well earning higher scores than deserved. All of these reasons could allow one to suggest that as time has progressed, the validity of the SAT is no longer legitimate. These are all reasons that the SAT is not a legitimate way of testing students because these claims point out the significant flaws that the standardized test has. Standardized testing is not a fair way of evaluating a students aptitude for college. Colleges should be in charge of evaluating students instead of having a company that makes standardized tests for them to take.

OHara 2 The SAT had a significant scoring error in 2005. Around 4,000 SAT tests were scored incorrectly in October 2005 (Hoover). These students received scores lower than what they had actually deserved (Hoover). Some of the tests were scored incorrectly up to 200 points from the original scores (Hoover). The College Board (company that owns the SAT) decided to pay a settlement fee of $2.85 million to all the students that were given incorrect SAT scores (Hoover). This would be around $275 for each student (Hoover). Students did have the option to submit a claim to try and get more money (Hoover). The College Board did rescan the faulty tests to see that around 4,000 students tests scored higher after being scanned a second time (Hoover). The other problem with this issue is that by the time students finally got their legitimate scores, most of them had already been accepted into colleges or had missed deadlines so nothing could be changed necessarily (Hoover). There are a lot of problems with this. Students that had the faulty test scores really were not treated fairly. The reason the $275 pay out is not enough is because college is very expensive for many students. Some colleges give out scholarships for the test scores that students submit. For example, Indiana University awards the IU Excellence Scholarship worth $36,000 to students that get a 1340 SAT or higher (Automatic Academic Scholarships). Even if a student gets accepted to a college, they could be hopeful of getting a scholarship to that school. If the student cannot get the scholarship, then they may not be able to attend the school. This is one reason that the illegitimate scoring is a severe injustice to these students. The error can really shut down an opportunity for a student by limiting the college selection choice for a student. This example alone shows that the SAT with its own scoring errors is not a legitimate way of evaluating a students capabilities in a college atmosphere. If the test is potentially prone to error, then it is not an accurate way of evaluating students. Even if the margin of error is small, it can still have a devastating effect on even that one potential

OHara 3 student that can be affected by this potential scoring error. It can be a difference of making or breaking a students dream for college choice. For college to be such an integral part of a persons life in this day and age, it is insulting to those that have been victimized by this systematic error. If colleges had their own means of evaluation, then there would not be systematic test scoring error if students and admission directors had a personal evaluation. Another important factor is to consider that many colleges are now going test optional. Even though most colleges recognize the test nationally, there are now approximately 760 colleges and universities embracing a test-optional policy (McDermott). Ann McDermott argues that the reason colleges are doing this is because they believe that a decision for a college admission should be based upon a students high school academic career and achievements inside and out of the academic setting (McDermott). As Director of Admissions for College of the Holy Cross, she believes that test scores should not define students (McDermott). She also suggests that colleges should focus on helping students develop themselves upon past achievements (McDermott). College of the Holy Cross has had many benefits for not just the college itself, but the students that join as well (McDermott). Even if it is not the vast majority of colleges, the fact that over 750 colleges have gone test-optional is still very significant. Clearly these colleges see this as the way to help students that may not be the best test-takers but still perform well in other areas. McDermott clearly recognizes that the SAT is no longer considered a fair way to test students aptitude. She is among those that have taken the step of bettering their universities selection process. Students are not being evaluated on an individual basis and not merely as simply a test score number. Perhaps other colleges across the country in time will see the benefits these other schools have of being test-optional by helping students get a more individualized approach to college selection. This would serve as a much better way of

OHara 4 evaluating students because in this system, students are being treated on an individual basis and not as a test score. Since they are being evaluated as an individual, not only will they be viewed from an academic standpoint, but a personal one as well. The SAT cannot identify people on a personal level because it only tests them from an academic basis without even knowing who the actual person is other than how they do on the test. Colleges like Holy Cross are going the extra mile to get a better understanding of the applicants because they believe this will better serve them as potential students for the university and the university itself. The students that have come to Holy Cross since they officially announced being a testoptional school since 2005 are giving the student body of Holy Cross a much more diverse population (McDermott). She says the 3 classes since 2006 had taken more rigorous courses in high school and would be more engaged with classes than in previous years (McDermott). Perhaps she is implying that students that take more rigorous courses in a high school setting will prepare them more for college than just a standardized test (McDermott). The intention is to be putting the students first by working with them on determining their admission to a school (McDermott). She says the school requires transcripts, essays, and personal interviews from the student (McDermott). This shows that this college really has an interest in getting to know the student on a personal level and not just as a kid that scored in a certain percentile on the SAT. College of the Holy Cross policy demonstrates that this is a college that is dedicated to its mission and student body by putting an emphasis in bring out the best in students (McDermott). She believes that there are just good test takers that will not do well at College of the Holy Cross (McDermott). The students that are willing to put in the hard work by time and effort are the ones that will succeed (McDermott).

OHara 5 While critics suggest that the standards are being lowered by not requiring SAT test scores, she suggests that the admission process is now more selective (McDermott). The process for selection became more in depth because a test score no longer guaranteed a student admission to the school (McDermott). The year that Holy Cross started the test-optional policy, just over 30% of the applicants were accepted into Holy Cross (McDermott). She also claims that applicants that are accepted into Holy Cross are in the top 7% of their high school class (McDermott). She argues that colleges like College of the Holy Cross will give students back control of their academic careers by embracing this type of policy (McDermott). She believes that this will get students to take pride in their high school work as well as help them recognize that a test score does not determine success for a student (McDermott). Charles V. Willie education professor from Harvard believes that the standardized test is an accurate measurement for the first year of college, but irrelevant by a students fourth year (Willie 626). He discusses how students that come from racially diverse backgrounds can be put at a disadvantage (Willie 626). One example is that he talks about how black students on average score about 100 points lower than the national average (Willie 626). After doing independent research, Willie found that the percentage of black and white students had more similar grades in their fourth year of college vs. the white students getting higher standardized test scores going into college (626). When black and white medical students were tested for retention rate differed by 11% with blacks having 87% in school and whites having 98% in school (Willie 627). These were the black students that scored 100 points lower on average for verbal and quantitative testing 3 years prior (Willie 627). This contributes to Willies argument that standardized test scores are only an adequate measurement for the first year of higher education but not necessarily beyond that (626).

OHara 6 Willie suggests that students that come from racially and/or ethnically diverse backgrounds possess different talents that can make different contributions to things (Willie 628). One example Willie uses is that American-Jewish students typically score higher on verbal tests and Chinese-Americans score higher in mathematics (Willie 626). He believes that students should be acknowledged for the talents and skills their backgrounds give them (Willie 626). Perhaps Willie and McDermott find common ground on the idea that students should be looked at on a personal level and not just as another test score number. Willie suggests that that students should be looked at for their talents and what they can bring to the environment of the university as well as being a benefit to society later on down the road (qtd. in Hart). This is a professor from one of the most selective colleges in the nation. He even sees that the SAT should not be the way for determining a students potential in college. This shows the SAT is not valid because like Willie suggested the SAT is not an accurate measurement of how a student will do in college overall. He even talks about how some students score based off of ethnicity and background puts certain students at an advantage over others. The colleges should do a more individualized evaluation. They could be done in a similar manner how McDermott is doing with her college. He believes that colleges should do this because then colleges will know personally whom they are bringing into their community. Just because a student has a high-test score does not necessarily mean that they will do well. If colleges go beyond just looking for a good test score, then they will have a better idea of who they are accepting and will have more assurance that the student will be a benefit instead of a liability to the colleges atmosphere. There are some studies that have shown that the socioeconomic background of a student does indeed play a significant role in the scoring of a student on a standardized test. For example, one claim according to the United States Department of Education is that the SAT

OHara 7 shows a bias favoring whites with higher scores over other races (Fast Facts Table 151). The United States Department of Education reported in 2009-2010, white high school seniors scored 528 on average for critical reading while black high school seniors scored 429 on average and Mexican-American seniors scored 454 on average for critical reading (Fast Facts Table 151). A similar trend appears for testing on mathematics as well. White high school seniors scored 536 on average while black high school seniors scored 428 on average and Mexican-Americans seniors scored 467 on average for mathematics as well reported by the United States Department of Education (Fast Facts Table 151). Another interesting factor that can play into a students scoring on the SAT is the income of the students family. Students that have lower family incomes typically do more poorly on the SAT. For example for in 2009-2010, a student whose family makes less than $20,000 a year scored 437 in critical reading, 460 in mathematics, and 432 in writing on average as reported by the United States Department of Education (SAT mean scores Table 153). With this being understood, one could assume that students that have higher family income score higher than those with less family income. In 2009-2010, United States Department of Education reported that a student with a family income of $200,000 or more scored a 568 in critical reading, 586 in mathematics, and a 567 in writing on average (SAT mean scores Table 153). Students with higher family income clearly out perform students with lower family income significantly on average. It is important to consider why this would be the case though. The types of schools that a student attends can also play a huge factor into whether or not they test fairly or poorly. Students that went to public schools in 2009-2010 on average scored 498 on critical reading, 511 on mathematics, and 488 on writing according to the U.S. Department of Education (SAT mean scores Table 153). In 2009-2010, U.S. Department of

OHara 8 Education reported students that went to private schools on average scored 557 in critical reading, 583 in mathematics, and 560 in writing (SAT mean scores Table 153). Since students that go to public schools go free of charge, it could be argued that most families making less than $20,000 a year are likely sending their kids to public schools. Perhaps it could also be argued that a student that has a family income of $200,000 or more is more likely to attend a private school. This directly corresponds to the quality of the education a student is getting based off economic background. If income plays a factor into the scoring of ones SAT, then it is not really fair for those that do not have the means financially. If a non-white or financially strained student saw these statistics, this could be seen as a discouragement of trying to pursue a college education. These statistics can persuade students to give up or not apply themselves if they do not have the confidence or if they feel that they cannot rise above how statistics suggest they will do. This can make a student feel like that nothing else they do matters in pursuing a college education other than their SAT score seeing that most colleges consider admission most over how well a student scored on the SAT. Another thing to consider in this case, an advantage to one student is a disadvantage to another. For example, the white student or student from a family of high income is automatically at an advantage due their socioeconomic background. While this is a plus for a student that fits in that category it is a disadvantage for many students as well that are not white or in a high family income bracket. All the more reason that its a not valid way to test students. Cheating on the SAT can also put students at a highly unfair advantage especially if the score was not earned legitimately. Just recently, Sam Eshaghoff of Nassau County has been caught taking SAT and ACT tests for students that would pay him money (Anderson and Applebome). The recent high school graduated has supposedly taken around sixteen

OHara 9 standardized tests for students over a three-year period (Anderson and Applebome). He would impersonate the students by making fake I.D.s with the names of the students and his picture on them so that he could sit for their exams (Anderson and Applebome). Eshaghoff suggested that it was fairly simple to take the tests for other students undetected (Anderson and Applebome). The test-taking impersonator would change testing centers to avoid being recognized and under the radar (Anderson and Applebome). Eshaghoff had finally been caught after showing a fake I.D. for two girls that he was trying to take the test for (Anderson and Applebome). Eshaghoff is not the only one. In Nassau County, New York, 20 teenagers were arrested in relation to the SAT cheating scandal (Anderson and Applebome). Students that were accused of being testtaking impersonators were charged with felonies (Anderson and Applebome). The Educational Testing Service disqualifies around 3,000 tests per year due to suspicion of foul play (Anderson and Applebome). If around 3,000 tests are not counted because of suspicion of cheating, clearly one could make the argument that it is a significant problem in regards to the validity of the SAT. It may not be the majority but if there are at least this many suspected of cheating, there could be more that are not even being looked at. There are many counter-arguments to consider that support the validity of the SAT. Some would argue that schools like College of the Holy Cross are simply lowering their standards. Another attack at the test-option policy could be that these schools are really inflating their test scores by not counting the ones not submitted or that would lower the new average (Matthews). McDermott would respond to this by emphasizing that since 2006, they have more things they evaluate a student on rather such as interviews, difficulty of classes in high school, and previous achievements than just grade point average and a test score (McDermott). She would also argue that they are more interested in serving the student and encouraging them

OHara 10 rather than telling them they are not good enough because they didnt score high enough (McDermott). One thing to consider in this debate is rewarding people for being good test takers or rewarding those for making achievements (Cloud 1). Another argument that could be made against the schools going test optional is that Holy Cross is a small liberal arts college that is not on par in size in comparison to much larger universities. DePaul University, the largest Catholic University in the United States is test optional for similar reasons (Test Optional FAQS). An argument for the scoring error could be that it was a fluke in the system and did not have an effect on the majority of SAT tests that year. While that is true, students still had their scores distorted and this could have denied them admission and/or financial scholarships to a school they hoped to go to. This error was careless and limited these students college choices. A rebuttal for the SAT cheating scandal is that it is a small number of students doing this and is starting to be handled by SAT officials. While this is a true claim, one must consider that students have been doing this for a while. Sam Eshaghoff reportedly took it at least sixteen times over a 3 year time period (Anderson and Applebome). Students clearly have methods to find the loopholes in the security of the SAT system. Another thing to consider is students that did get away with it could potentially deny students an admission spot for a college. Since a student got a higher score thanks to higher someone to take the test for them, they could have knocked someone off a waitlist for admission because their score was slightly higher even though the student with the lower score earned it legitimately. It does not matter how small the number of students that could be cheating on the test is. That does not make it okay and should not be excused because these students are still at a huge advantage over the vast majority of students taking the test in an honest manner.

OHara 11 A testing company such as College Board should not be how students are evaluated for college admission. Colleges should have their own methods for determining a students college acceptance. Some schools can do what McDermott has done for Holy Cross and have their own individualized process for admission consideration based more upon evaluation student achievements in and out of the classroom. Interviewing students on a personal level each will give schools a better idea of who the student they are considering is as a person. Not all colleges should have the same method. Colleges should create an admission process that best fits the ideology of the university. While there may be several different admission processes a student may have to go through, it will give the student a better idea of where the student may fit in best. This will better serve a student in the long run anyways. It will rule out any doubts a student will have about a school if students will do better at a school that helps them grow as a person and not just academically. If such methods were to be pursued by most universities in the nation, it could be argued that transfer rates would potentially decrease because students are getting to know their school through a much different admission process. Such an admission process will serve a student more in this manner much more effectively than just labeling them as a test score number and accepting them on nothing else. By knowing the students, the universities will grow more effectively as well because they are bettering their students in such a way as well.

OHara 12 Works Cited Anderson, Jenny, and Peter Applebome. "Exam Cheating on Long Island Hardly a Secret." Education. The New York Times, 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. Assessor, An. "Testing, Privatization, and the Future of Public Schooling." Monthly Review, An Independent Socialist Magazine. Monthly Review, July 2011. Web. 05 Feb. 2012. "Automatic Academic Scholarships." Office of Scholarships: Indiana University Indiana University, 2012. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. Bloomington.

Cloud, John. "Should SATs Matter?" Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews. TIME, 4 Mar. 2001. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. "Fast Facts." National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education, 2011. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. Hart, Frederick. History and Organization of the Laws School Admissions Test and the Law School Admission Council, in Hearings. Civil Rights Obligations, Part 2A (Washington D.C.: Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974). Web 12 Feb. 2012 Hoover, Eric. "$2.85-Million Settlement Proposed in Lawsuit Over SAT-Scoring Errors." Internet Archive: Wayback Machine. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 24 Aug. 2007. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. Matthews, Jay. "What the SAT-optional Colleges Dont Tell You." The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 31 July 2009. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. McDermott, Ann B. "Surviving Without the SAT." Chronicle of Higher Education 10 Oct. 2008: A41. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Feb. 2012. Partanen, Anu. "What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finland's School Success." The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. "SAT Mean Scores of College-bound Seniors, by Selected Student Characteristics." National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education, 2011. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. "The Relationship between Education Spending and Test Scores." Super-Economy. SuperEconomy, 3 Jan. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2012 Willie, Charles V. "The Problem Of Standardized Testing In A Free And Pluralistic Society." Phi Delta Kappan 66.9 (1985): 626-628. Academic Search Complete. Web. 5 Feb. 2012.