About
Community
Bad Ideas
Drugs
Ego
Artistic Endeavors
But Can You Dance to It?
Cult of the Dead Cow
Literary Genius
Making Money
No Laughing Matter
On-Line 'Zines
Science Fiction
Self-Improvement
Erotica
Fringe
Society
Technology
register | bbs | search | rss | faq | about
meet up | add to del.icio.us | digg it

Legitimacy of S.A.T. and A.C.T. Scores

by LethalStorm

Many things in life are unfair. Some of these things are insignificant, while others may alter lives forever. These life-altering events can be anything, from breaking a led to losing a family member. However, most people seldom think of standardized tests as unjust, life-altering events and experiences. While that may be the case, for a lot of past and present students, this view is all too true. Due to the increasing pressures surrounding the ACT and SAT tests, and the biases written into the questions themselves, several groups of students around the country tend to under-perform; however, a simple solution to this problem may be to reward bonus points to these under-privileged groups, in an attempt to handicap their scores. This will be the only way to combat the many problems that these standardized tests have.

One major criticism of the SAT and ACT scores is the fact that men generally outscore women (Burdman 1). According to the test writers, who claim that the tests predict college success, this should never happen. Phyllis Rosser, the author of a landmark study on gender bias in the SAT, has recognized this problem: "The SAT is supposed to predict how well you're going to do in college. However, women get better grades in high school and better or equal grades in college." (Burdman 3)

This in no way agrees with the fact that males - on average - outscore females by 43 points nationwide on the SAT (Berube 1). Robert Schaeffer of the Fair Test Organization has also studied the facts surrounding this issue and concluded, "The answer is that the test is biased." (Spoerri 2)

On top of that, men frequently outscore women on the ACT, and as a result, schools like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are more likely to admit women over men with slightly higher score (Berube 20). This clearly shows that even the colleges feel that these tests are biased towards the male sex.

Roser, Schaeffer and others feel that this bias has to do with the position of men in society. They think that men are more confident due to the fact that they usually get better jobs and earn more money than women, and therefore they perform better on the multiple-choice tests (Spoerri 4).

Marlene Spoerri, a former test taker and current journalist helps sum up this idea by saying, "You've got to be able to trust your instincts and just go for an answer whether or not you're 100% sure you're right. If you time to second guess yourself, chances are that you're not going to finish the entire exam, which leaves you with a lower score." (4). This makes sense, as I am sure that it has happened to us all when taking the test. Spoerri, being one of the foremost experts in the world on SAT/ACT exams presents an interesting thesis with convincing proof.

The fact that Asian Americans and Caucasians do better than African-Americans and Latinos on these tests also leaves people asking how legitimate the scores are. For example, in 1992, White students had an average advantage of 187 points when compared to African-Americans (Berube 1). On those same tests 10 years ago, the average Mexican-American score was 127 points below that of Caucasians taking the test (Berube 1). Some may argue that these statistics are 10 years old and inaccurate by now. They're right; the problem has grown more pronounced since then. In fact, Mexican-Americans find themselves 158 points behind their White peers (Berube 1). Also, the average White score on the SAT coming in at 1063 and the African-American score at 857, the so called "White-Black gap" has increased to 206 points (Berube 5). Of course, this pronounced difference in the scores must be due to the fact that minority students do not have equal opportunities, right? Wrong - in the 1980's, ETS (Educational Testing Service, and the writers of the SAT) researchers experimenting with how to minimize the Black-white differences created an exam on which African-Americans outscored Whites (Burdman 3). The only conclusion to be reached is that the SAT is biased, ETS knows about and yet nothing is being done to resolve the issue. In addition, the same problem exists which in 2000 saw Whites outscore African-Americans by an average of 4.8 points out of a possible 36 (Berube 6). The ACT acknowledges this problem, and according to their own research, "when all factors are equal such as grade work, grades and family income, Whites outscore all other races." (Berube 6). Yet, like ETS, they do nothing to correct it.

The tests also appear to be biased in a way that favors students from high income households. For example, students coming from families earning more than $100,000 a year have an average score of 1123, while students from families making less than that cutoff score 864, a difference of 259 points (Berube 1). Similarly, the ACT also seems to favor those who earn more, with students whose parents earn over $100,000 scoring 23.4, and those who earn less than $18,000 averaging only 18.3 (Berube 2). As staggering as these statistics may be, the fact that the children with parents with graduate degrees outscore kids with parents who did not finish high school by 272 points is even more surprising (Berube 2). One reason for this is "income-advantage" may be related to programs like the ones offered by The Princeton Review, which guarantees that students will improve their scores by a certain number of points. This allows like University of California - Berkeley to hold the upper hand over students who can't afford the courses (Burdman 4). Likewise, a student in California named Ciscley confirms that she has several friends "who paid for courses and did markedly better at their second and third attempts on the test." (Ciscley 2). However, this shows that the tests are coachable and the obvious bias is that all colleges treat the students the same from the lower-income families as those who spend upwards of $800 for these "Quick-fix" courses (Spoerri 4). This is unfair because the courses just show students how to do better on a particular test, it does not make them smarter than those who don't pay for the course. It is almost as though the courses allow a way for students with money to cheat on the tests by cheating the system.

Another bias is that there are all kinds of pressures surrounding standardized tests, and since everyone handles them differently, this is not fair. However, the fact is that regardless of this issue, students are judged by their test scores simply because they are easily accessible and offer a numerical value that allows them to be incorrectly compared to other students (ACT scores). Amy Waters, a junior at Lab School in New York City says that the SATs are unfair to some students because they "put you into this box that doesn't mention whether or not you are a great basketball player, a brilliant artists or an amazing chemistry student." (Spoerri 3). A lot of people agree with this idea, believing that the SAT measures a person's ability to take a questionable test under pressure, rather than how successful they will be in the future (Spoerri 4). They feel that students attach too much importance to the test instead of focusing on all of the bright spots of their academic careers and feeling content and happy about them. No matter how little the tests ultimately matter in determining the success of students, Robert Schaeffer of the Fair Test Organization points out that they often succumb to the pressure to do well: "Students believe that they are their test score. If you get a high score you must be smart, and vice versa for a low score." (Spoerri 2).

One of the major sources of the pressure surrounding these tests comes from the colleges themselves. One reason for this is that almost every college requires one of the tests, and uses the scores as one of the main factors affecting admission decisions. As one expert explains, "High scores on these exams can mean the difference between a community college and an Ivy League school." (Gonzalez 1). An example of this can be seen by looking at a statistic from the University of California - Berkeley: of the 27,000 students who applied one year, 12,000 has 4.0 GPA's - and the school only had 4,000 seats to fill (Burdman 2). Since they obviously couldn't use high school grades to make admissions decisions, they turned to ACT and SAT scores. The logic behind this is flawed because of the biases inherent in the tests, and they therefore need a system that both works better than making decisions based on the tests, and at the same time relieves some of the pressures surrounding the tests. However, that is not currently the case, and as it is now, these tests "only perpetuate inequality, serving as gate keepers to professional schools and colleges." (Burdman 3).

Parents also cause a lot of the pressure surrounding these tests. Many experts agree that parental pressure contributes to lower scores on the SAT (Spoerri 2). For example, one parent was quoted as saying, "SAT's are very important and I would be very disappointed if my daughter got under a 1300. I expect her to get higher than the 1350 she got on the PSAT." (Spoerri 2). With parents acting like so, it is no wonder students are under such great pressure to perform. One student even said, "If I get below a 1250, I'd cry and my parents would kill me." (Spoerri 2). The extra pressure and stress caused by these situations benefits nobody, but it does contribute to the bias of the ACT and SAT tests. Peer pressure is yet another source of pressure. Students feel pressured into doing well on the tests so that their peers do not think that they are stupid. It is the fear of this that causes more pressure and mental stress, and in fact leads to lower scores. This problem has been recognized Marlene Spoerri, a journalist for New Youth Connections, who says, "feeling pressured to do well on the SAT has a major psychological impact on many students", and has concluded that this caused scores to be lower in most cases (Spoerri 2). Many students say, and most experts agree, that it is these students with low scores who feel inferior to those with higher scores, and going to other tests they feel the pressure (Spoerri 2). In fact, Deborah Slavin, another student from Lab School in New York City, says that the SAT's create and inferiority complex among low scorers, and superiority complexes for those who do well, and predicts that these feelings will last way beyond high school (Spoerri 2). Furthermore, other students and teachers report that students with low scores feel stupid and in some cases are even embarrassed to talk to those who score highly.

Some states even help contribute to the stress and confusion surrounding these tests, by implementing their own high-stakes tests (Gonzalez 1). Schools, in part due to the possible money involved, heavily focus on tests such as the MEAP in Michigan, the CAT in California, and the FCAT in Florida. Great importance is attached to these tests because high scores on them will benefit the schools and improve their reputation. However, so much attention is focused on these tests that students are often forced to overlook the ACT and SAT in favor of them (Gonzales 5). It is a proven fact that focusing on state-mandated tests hurts ACT and SAT scores. A 2002 Arizona State University study revealed that 67% of states with these mandated tests saw decreases in their average ACT score, and 56% saw a decrease in their SAT scores (Gonzalez 1). For ecample, Brevard County Schools in Florida saw a drop in ACT scores between 1998 and 2003, despite the fact that their curriculum had been updated and they had over four times as many students enrolled in AP classes (Gonzales 4). Their SAT scores also fell, and this is attributable to the fact that state legislators make the FCAT more important than either of the other tests. It is because schools are forced to model their curriculum after the FCAT (since it is necessary for seniors to graduate) that students get slighted on the ACT and SAT. When test time comes, they are ill prepared and this causes undue distractions. Distractions that students in other states are not burdened with. For this reason, the stress caused by these mandatory state tests creates another way in which the ACT and SAT are biased.

Now that all the biases and pressures surrounding these tests have been explained, it is time to see how they actually affect people. First of all, Black students in the south have been regularly been taken advantage of due to these biases in the ACT and SAT tests. For example, in 1962 Mississippi's board of higher education implemented a minimum ACT score for admission that was eight points above the average ACT for African-Americans (Berube 15). The reason for this cutoff was not to make sure that they had the brightest students attending their universities, it was to make sure that very few Black students could attend them. Likewise, Louisiana has a program that allows high achieving students to have their tuition and fees waived if they scored above 20 on the ACT. This cutoff is very close to the White cutoff in the state, but more than three points higher than the average Black score. In addition, Stanford University conducted research to tell if the stories of bias were true (Burdman 3). In their trials, Stanford University found that when they told that the tests were for research purposes only, Blacks tested on par with Whites. However, when a different set of students were given the same test and told that their tests mattered, the biases were confirmed when Black students underperformed. This shows that the stresses and biases involving race are very real.

In a more personal situation, Bill Bradley, a former Princeton Honor Student, who was one of the select few to be chosen for the Rhodes Scholarship, scored only 485 points out of a possible 800 on the verbal section of his SAT (Spoerri 4). After graduating with honors from Princeton, he also went on to play in the NBA, serve as a U.S. Senator and even run for President. This is a long list of accomplishments for someone who was all but deemed unsuccessful by the SAT. This shows that scores cannot be taken to mean anything about an individual and his talents, and therefore they should be discontinued.

Many reputable experts also agree that the SAT and ACT tests are biased and inaccurate, and that something must be done to change the current situation. David Sadker of American University says, "High stakes tests do not reflect learning. They are a direct result of prepping for a test." (Gonzales 3). Jeff Rubenstein, the Vice President and Head Researcher for Program Development at the Princeton Review concurs, "These college-bound tests do not measure achievement. They are not aligned with state curriculum. All they say is how well you take the particular test (Gonzalez 2). Jane Brien, the Assistant Director at Bard College (which has recently done away with their ACT/SAT requirements) adds, "The philosophy of Bard is that the SAT's are not a great indicator of a student's potential." (Spoerri 3). George E. Rupp, president of Columbia University confirms that the SAT's do not mean much, and says that their admissions staff turns down lots of students with high SAT's and admit some students with very low scores (Spoerri 3). Eugene Garcia, Dean of Berkeley's School of Education, admits that these tests are sometimes unfair and says, "We're doing some high stakes decision making - who is eligible to come to the university - using a tool that's quite questionable." (Burdman 3). One of her colleagues, sociologist Samuel Lucas, thinks that if the SAT is going to be used, it should be used as one item among many in determining admissions decisions (Burdman 2). Jay Rosner of the Princeton Review offers an analogy that helps show the questionable status of these tests "I liken the standardized test to free-throw shooting in basketball. Good free-throw shooters tend to be good basketball players and vice versa, but there are so many exceptions to the rule, that you have to question the connection." (Burdman 4).

Obviously, the increase in the racial gap - as well as other issues - on these tests prompts action to avoid future problems. For a while affirmative action was the answer to the problem, but it has recently come under fire. Robert Schaeffer, the Education Director of FairTest says, "The attack on affirmative action has accelerated the movement to make scores optional." (Burdman 1). Claude Steele, a social psychologist at Stanford, helps confirm the current problem, "I don't know if there is a simple way to make those tests objectively unbiased for every group. Affirmative action compensated for some of the biases in the testing system." (Burdman 2). For some schools, solving this problem was simple. For example, the University of Texas, whose affirmative action program was stopped by courts, has begun to admit any student graduating in the top ten percent of his or her high school class - regardless of their test scores (Burdman 2). A University of California advisory board is expected to introduce a similar proposal that will do away with their SAT requirement, but for others, the answer is not to get rid of the test (Burdman 1). Michael Berube, a New York Times columnist, agrees with other experts that one way to minimize the biases would be to "handicap" the tests like a game of golf. He suggests that these handicaps could be issued on the basis of race, gender, location, and other demographics to help make the scores more comparable across the board. To help people understand the point, he offers the following example:

"Take a black girl form rural Alabama whose parents make under $10,000 and did not graduate from high school, and put her up against the wealthy white boy from Lake Success whose parents have Ph.D's. Before she sets pen to paper, she could be facing an 848-point deficit. If we assign her only 80 percent of the parental-education gap (217.6 points), 60 percent of the income gap (155.4 points), 30 percent of the racial gap (61.8 points), 20 percent of the regional gap (13.6 points) and 10 percent of the gender gap (4.3 points), the 452.7 point handicap will help us gauge her true talents more accurately" (2).

Since the ACT and SAT writers offer little help in solving the problem, this method seems the fairest way to deal with the biases written into the test. It makes sense to him, several other experts, the college community, and me. However, test writers still writers still refuse to handicap the scores, and individual schools must do it for themselves. As a conclusion to his proposal, Berube offers the following: "golf - a game, notably, in which success has been long tied to race, sex and income - has much to teach the College Board." (2). Till they learn this lesson, the injustice will continue, and SAT/ACT scores will only serve as numerical values, rather than helpful information.

The ACT and SAT tests both tend to favor males over females. Also, White students score significantly higher on both tests than any other racial group. Students whose parents make more money than others also appear to do better. The only explanation for all of these occurrences on both tests is simple: they are biased, and experts concur. It is because of this discrimination that certain students tend to under-perform on those tests, and for that reason, handicapping the scores must be done to level the playing field.

WORKS CITED

"ACT scores must be taken in context." 27 August 2000, http://www.theindependent.com/stories/082700/opi_det_act27.html, 17 November 2003.

Berube, Michael. "Testing Handicaps." The New York Times 21 September 2003: 18, InfoTrac Online. Online. 17 November 2003.

Burdman, Pamela. "SAT Exam's Worth in Question." San Fransisco Chronicle 11 November 1997: Al, SIRS Discoverer. Online. 19 November 2003.

Gonzalez, Zenaida A. "FCAT push taking toll on scores for pre-college tests, some say." Florida Today 13 September 2003: 1, InfoTrac Online. Online. 17 November 2003.

"On my mind: Fact #9: ACT Scores." http://ciscley.frohme.org/CMT/archives/001265.html, 17 November 2003.

Spoerri, Marlene. "Sucked in by the SATs." New Youth Connections April 2000:13-14, SIRS Discoverer. Online. 19 November 2003.

 
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.

 

totse.com certificate signatures
 
 
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
Hot Topics
Foolproof way to clear up your face
i got in an accident
My hair
I can never have enough to drink
Finding a bloody job!
Lisp question
FAt food
Would you hit it?
 
Sponsored Links
 
Ads presented by the
AdBrite Ad Network

 

TSHIRT HELL T-SHIRTS