Eighty years ago, the SAT was designed to standardize the
college admissions process. But since then, the SAT has become an
obstacle and its present-day value must be questioned.
Originally an Army IQ test in the 1920s, it attempted to test
inherent ability, not measure how much a student had learned. But
since its creation, our theories about intelligence have changed
““ and the importance of accessibility has trumped
standardization.
Last year, a controversy erupted when then-UC Regents Chairman
John Moores commissioned a report that the University of California
system accepted thousands of students who scored under 1000 on the
SAT.
He suggested that the UC was letting in unqualified students
““ possibly in an attempt to circumvent rules banning
affirmative action.
But there is no evidence to suggest this is why students with
low scores were admitted, nor is it clear that these students
should not have been admitted. Ultimately, it was an insult to the
merits of thousands of UC students.
The SAT was designed to predict first-year college grades, but
many studies over the years have questioned its predictive
accuracy. A student’s high school grades are at least as
good, if not better, than their SAT scores at predicting his or her
college grades. And again, a student’s academic potential
must be measured by more than grades and scores alone.
In UCLA’s Class of 2003, Moores discovered that 6 percent
of students with scores under a 1000 were accepted. Among this
year’s freshman, that number has dropped to 3 percent, or
only 191 admissions.
Moreover, there is little evidence that admitting students with
low SAT scores hurts students with high scores.
A Los Angeles Times analysis showed that 89 percent of all
students with a 1400 or above were admitted ““ and certainly
there are applicants in this high-score category with low GPAs and
other problems that can make them less attractive than students
with lower SAT scores.
The SAT controversy will not be resolved easily. But it does
highlight the limited ability of the SAT to consistently predict
college success ““ and more importantly, determine the real
value of individual applicants.
The UC was also right to adopt the policy of comprehensive
review. Students are more than a collection of numbers, and the SAT
is only one of many. Mitigating factors, such as family income,
contextualize an applicant’s potential ““ even if their
test scores might suggest otherwise.
For now, because of the Proposition 209 ban, the UC cannot look
at race as one of those factors. But studies have shown minorities
continue to do worse on the SAT, and many experts believe the the
SAT is culturally biased against minorities who are often less
likely to be able to spend thousands of dollars for an SAT
tutor.
Though the SAT will surely remain an aspect of the college
admissions process, its weight should continue to decrease.
One-dimensional critiques of applicants, and even entire freshman
classes, are both naive and dangerous diversions to ensuring higher
education in California remains accessible to a wide spectrum of
students.