No
Charles A. Kiesler:
Don't deify or demonize the test

Once again the SAT is in the news. Some educators are calling for eliminating the test from the college admissions process. I believe this action would narrow college access and increase the likelihood of student failure--exactly the opposite effects intended. The SAT has proved for 75 years that it is a valuable part of the admissions process, and its role should be preserved. Based on my experiences as a student, a social psychologist and the leader of a major public university, I believe the SAT not only expands access but also can improve the chances of student success.

The basic purpose of the SAT is to help assess a student's college readiness. One measure of the test's effectiveness is its ability to predict college grades. When considered alone, students' SAT scores predict their college grades about as well as do their high school grades. But when students' SAT scores are used in combination with their GPAs, the predictive accuracy is increased significantly. And, after all, a good predictor helps determine whether a student can succeed at a given college.

Eliminating a good predictor means that more of a college's accepted students will fail; that is an inescapable mathematical fact. If a student fails, particularly if he or she could have succeeded somewhere else, then the student has been done a disservice. Without the SAT, more students, particularly minority students, will fail.

In the thick of the debate, we sometimes forget that the original purpose of the test was to increase college access. I graduated from a tiny, unaccredited high school in rural Michigan. My teachers were not aware of the SAT, but taking the test would have expanded my college options and my chances for financial aid. Today, young people in rural America and in the inner cities face even steeper barriers.

Has society overemphasized the SAT? Perhaps, but eliminating it is not the answer. We shouldn't deify the test, but we shouldn't demonize it either. The SAT should be used as the College Board has stressed over several generations--in conjunction with high school grades and other factors. The test will help open doors of opportunity, make the best match between a student and a college and, above all, increase the chances of student success.

Simply put, the SAT is one of the best tools we have for enabling students to show their potential. Why would we want to stop them from doing just that?

Yes
Richard Flacks:
It will improve college admissions

University of California president Richard Atkinson's proposal to terminate the use of the SAT I as a tool for UC admissions is a bold challenge to the status quo.

Some say this move is an attempt to raise minority student enrollments by watering down admissions requirements. I disagree. I believe the proposal not only will make UC campuses more accessible but will enable them to better recruit students who can make best use of what the university has to offer.

The goal is to change the culture that has grown up around the SAT. The "big test" is, in the mind of many middle-class parents and students, the primary indicator of academic merit. Many now assume that students who make high scores deserve first preference in college admission, that the quality of colleges can be assessed on the basis of the average SAT scores of their freshman classes, that the effectiveness of high schools is reflected by SAT score achievement, that scores can be significantly raised by commercial test preparation regimes and that such preparation is the key to getting into the "best" colleges.

Such beliefs have disturbing consequences. One is an increasing tendency to teach to the SAT. Another is the strong effect the "SAT culture" has on students' self-perceptions. Students unable to afford test-prep courses or those whose families are not college educated often believe that they are fated to do poorly. Such beliefs help explain why, in California, many black and Latino students whose grades would make them UC eligible don't take the SAT tests required for admission.

Most of the prevailing assumptions about the test are wrong. The SAT has marginal value for predicting grades; high school grades or the kinds of high school courses students have taken are far better predictors of college success. The test's primary use is to make life easier for admissions officers; it provides a quick screening device that provides them with a seemingly objective basis for their decisions.

Readiness for college depends on both adequate academic preparation and eagerness for learning. In my experience, students from affluent backgrounds are often less motivated to take advantage of the opportunities for learning and growth that the campus offers than are students from the inner city, from working-class families, who are "first generation." Although the latter are likely to score considerably less well on the SAT, they are more likely, these days, to make teaching a pleasure.

American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO - 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW - Washington, DC 20001