Shirin Vossoughi Vossoughi is a
third-year history and American literature and culture student.
Speak your mind and e-mail her at shirinv@ucla.edu.
Remember that day a few years back when you ripped open the
envelope you’d been waiting anxiously for ““ the one
that would determine your chances of getting into UCLA in the first
place? The one that said, “SAT”?
Even if we don’t want to admit it, even if we think that
the test is a ridiculously incorrect evaluation of our knowledge or
preparedness for college, somewhere deep down, many of us felt that
that little number score said something about who we are or how
much we know. But this is no surprise.
Our education system has succeeded in making us think our
capabilities can be determined by one test, regardless of the
quality of schools we went to or our access to test preparation
courses. Even worse, children in the United States face the
prospect of spending not only high school, but their entire
educational careers learning how to take standardized tests instead
of learning how to think.
 Illustration by ERICA PINTO/Daily Bruin University of
California President Richard C. Atkinson has taken up the issue of
SATs, recently proposing that the UC no longer require the SAT I
for admission. The UC system would, however, continue to require
the SAT II, pending the creation of new standardized tests directly
connected to the college preparatory curriculum in high school.
Atkinson has made this proposal to the system-wide Academic
Senate. While Senate and UC regent approval of such a proposal is a
crucial step in increasing accessibility to higher education and
combating the inequalities such tests perpetuate, we need to go
even further. We must demand the implementation of a holistic
admissions process at every UC and question the use of standardized
tests in all stages of the education system.
President Atkinson rightfully recognizes the detrimental effects
of the SATs not only on the students, but also on the university.
In addition to the test being repeatedly attacked for racial and
sexual biases, accessibility to test preparation courses is limited
to those that can afford it. Two of the most esteemed courses,
Kaplan and Princeton Review, run about $800. These thorough classes
teach students tricks and methods for test taking, giving those
that can foot the bill an upper hand on test day and making access
to higher education even more dependent on economic class. Too bad
promoting equality through the elimination of biased tests might
hurt the growing profits of the multi-billion dollar test-prep
business.
The SAT has also been criticized for measuring knowledge that
does not determine how well a student will perform once they are
accepted to a university. According to the office of President
Atkinson, the UC system admits 50-75 percent of students solely on
the basis of test scores and GPA. But as Halford H. Fairchild,
professor of psychology at Pitzer college points out, “Many
of the students in the don’t-admit category would succeed
with flying colors if they were given the chance. … The single
most important criterion for a student’s success is his or
her motivation and effort, attributes that are untapped by SAT
scores.”
While Atkinson still supports the use of SAT IIs, which focus on
more specific subjects, Fairchild points out that any standardized
test fails to assess merit in the context of non-standardized
educational experiences. Instead of relying on such tests, the UC
system, and all universities, must adopt a more holistic approach.
Such a process would include a comprehensive assessment of all
information on the application, including academic performance,
extra-curricular activities, personal qualities, response to life
challenges, and likely contribution to the intellectual and
cultural vitality of the campus.
The SAT test additionally evaluates students on material they
have not been taught. Complex vocabulary and math sections require
students to spend months memorizing information that doesn’t
pertain to their curriculum, time they could spend preparing for
what higher education really demands: the ability to think
critically and creatively.
But, lack of focus on the development of critical thinking
skills is not limited to the SATs. Self-proclaimed education guru
George W. Bush has unveiled his latest proposal, which includes
standardized testing of students every year from grades three to
eight. Bush intends to use these tests to measure performance. But
he doesn’t stop there. The government will then use them to
determine which schools are failing and which are improving.
Instead of helping out failing schools, Bush will punish them by
withdrawing funding while rewarding those that improve student
performance. Great plan. Let’s measure all schools in the
exact same way regardless of varying obstacles and community
issues, take struggling schools and slap them in the face by
withdrawing funds. I bet that will help students.
As opposed to improving our education system, what such
assessments and consequences do is create an obsession with test
scores and take the focus away from the quality of education.
Teachers are forced to “teach to the test” and as Alfie
Kohn points out in his book, “The Case Against Standardized
Testing: Raising the Scores, Ruining the Schools,”
“Intellectual life is squeezed out of the schools ““ or
at least prevented from developing as tests take over the
curriculum.”
Test preparation not only eclipses more important learning, but
great teachers find their hands tied, and are instead forced to
focus on test material to improve their school’s performance,
preventing them from using their full capabilities. In addition,
those who design such tests may be from a specific cultural
background, unknowingly including language or references that a
child from a different background may not recognize.
Bush’s plan does not take into account students within the
same classroom who have different learning levels and styles, and
thus need more personal, less standardized education. At the heart
of the matter lies the effect standardized tests have on kids. No
one likes to take tests. At the university level, we suck it up and
are (hopefully) also engaged in meaningful discussion. But at a
younger age, kids will associate learning and education in general
with the nervousness and boredom of test taking. Such an
association can endure, turning children with high potential away
from school permanently.
Standardized tests leave no room for cultural and social
variations, and thus, no space for curriculum that will speak to a
child’s personal experiences and make learning something to
feel passionate about. When this happens, not only does the child
suffer, but society suffers as well. We risk raising generations of
children to think within the box and to regurgitate often
irrelevant facts instead of fostering critical thought about the
information they receive.
But in our highly indoctrinated society, this comes as no
surprise. To train children as consuming, success-oriented robots
with a highly Western view of history and society validates our
current system. New generations feed into the existing social
structure, without gaining the tools and skills necessary to
question the inequality imbedded within it.
Increasing access to higher education through the elimination of
the SATs is a first step. Transforming our current education system
as a whole to meet personal, cultural and social needs while
developing students as critical thinkers is essential if we ever
hope to see real change.