Learn About the Community

Standardized Tests

Today we will be discussing the context and importance of norm referenced tests in UC undergraduate admissions in the legal, ethical, social, and financial perspectives followed by our main argument. Then, we will discuss two potential solutions for this issue as well as our preferred solution, the total removal of norm referenced tests with the creation of a new criterion-referenced test to evaluate UC applicants. 

Terms to Know: 

So I am sure many of you have taken or are planning to take the SAT. The College Board recently released the statistics that more than 2.2 million students in the year of 2019 have taken the SAT. This not only shows the prevalence of today’s topic but in order to truly understand where the structural problems of the SAT arises we have to look to some terms to know. First underneath the umbrella of standardized tests is norm referenced tests. A norm referenced test is a test of knowledge that bases scores on how well you know how to take the tes and a bell curve. Some tests that fall under this category include the SAT and ACT. In direct contrast to this criterion referenced tests are a test of knowledge and do not utilize a bell curve. 

Social Lens:

Norm-referenced tests are shown to cause a large score gap between the different races, specifically between White Students and African American and Latino students. Director of the middle class initiative, Richard R. Reeves, provided the data shown in this graph that illustrates the large difference between the national SAT score and the median SAT scores of minority students. As you can see in the graph, in comparison to the median national score of 511 out of 800 on the math section, African American students scored on average 428, Latino students scored 457, Caucasian students scored 534, and Asian students scored 598, which proves that a racial score gap does exist. In addition, David Owen, an author of several books and pieces about highschool including an exposé about standardized testing, stated that statistics acknowledged by ETS and College Board show that significant score gap is also present between students from high income families in comparison to students from low-income families, which also significantly impacts african american and latino students, since according to the 2018 US Census, African American and Latino households often have total incomes that are half the size of those of white and asian american households. In addition, according to the Executive Director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, the SAT is shown to magnify the existing biases in society, instead of allowing for equal opportunity for all students regardless of race, which is illustrated by the socioeconomic biases that i discussed previously that are limiting african american and latino students’ potential to succeed on nn norm referenced tests like the SAT.

Ethical Lens:

As talked about earlier, there are some socio economic structural implications with the way that the SAT is structured. These implications carry on into the actual admissions process harming minority representation at colleges. Anthony Carnevale, a research Professor at Georgetown explains how Black and Latino students are only half as likely to attain a bachelor’s degree. In fact, whites make up almost two thirds of the population of undergraduates in selective colleges while Blacks and Latinos were majority placed in underfunded and overcrowded open access colleges. These unequal admissions are set as a result of the overuse of SAT scores. These tests maintain to be a bad indicator for success in college as they only explain 15 percent of the variation in college graduation rates. 

Solution 1:

Our first potential solution is for UC Admissions Officers to eliminate all standardized tests in the college admissions process. By doing this, admissions officers will have to rely on students’ high school GPA as their sole numerical evaluation of the student, since they will no longer be able to use SAT scores as a mode of comparison. The biggest benefit to the elimination of the use of the SAT is that as Richard C. Atkinson, the president emeritus of the University of California, and Saul Geiser a research associate at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the UC Berkeley, stated, the SAT fuels an “educational arms race” that pushes students to rely on expensive test-prep services in order to boost their scores by only a few points that because of the structure of the bell curve that the test is scored on, will put them significantly higher than the students that can’t afford such services, so by eliminating the SAT, this problem is no longer an issue. Another added benefit to eliminating all standardized tests is that according to Jennifer Kobrin and Rochelle Michel who are research scientists for the College Board, High School GPA is often more accurate in predicting a student’s GPA in their first year of College. This graph was provided by Kobrin and Michel and shows how for all of the listed GPAs on the graph, High School GPA is at least equally if not more accurate than SAT scores in predicting students’ success.

 Solution 1: 

When discussing some possible implications and limitations we have to recognize that colleges would have to default to taking a more holistic approach when evaluating applications, however, holistic applications will take longer to evaluate than numerical scores possibly creating a burden admissions officers. 

In addition, college admissions officers would be forced to rely more heavily on GPAs. While it was discussed that this might be a possible benefit, we have to evaluate what might truly happen when a heavier weight is given to GPA. Erica Meltzer a graduate from Wellesley College provides that the GPA’s of students at private schools has risen 8 percent in the last couple of years. It can be seen that private schools tend to inflate the grades of their students in order to market better to parents. Other forms of disadvantages include that private school students have access to high-priced academic tutoring, as well as grades can be affected by subjective factors like extra credit.  When viewing some implications from the legal lens, we can see that the use of SAT in admissions has sparked controversy. Anemona Hartocollis from the New York Times describes a lawsuit that many Asian American students brought against Harvard. The premise was that Harvard and many other elite colleges have started to set SAT score standards dependent on race. With the eradication of the SAT, colleges would be forced to take a more holistic approach, discarding of racist and biased methods of evaluation 

Financial lens

Through the financial lens, we can see that students with financial advantages have the upper hand over students without such advantages as they can afford expensive test preparation programs. Donald E. Powers, a meta-data researcher and author for the American Psychology Association, found that when studying the effectiveness of test preparation, students who utilized preparation had score increases of about 16 points on the math portion of the SAT. By allowing those with more money to perform better on the SAT,  the SAT is rooted in inequality. Researchers Donald Green and Glenn Roudabush, a research psychologist and author respectively, conducted research that further emphasized Power’s findings. They conclude that because not all schools provide the same quality of education, students in poorer demographic schools will be less prepared to take norm-referenced tests such as the SAT. 

GPA INFLATION

College admissions systems would be forced to rely more heavily on GPAs in the admissions process once standardized tests are removed. Statistics show GPA of students at private schools has risen 8 percent in the last couple of years. The way disadvantages to lower income students might appear in the education system despite the eradication of standardized tests by pointing to how private school students have access to high-priced academic tutoring, as well as grades can be affected by subjective factors like extra credit. 

Solution #2

Our primary solution is the total elimination of the use of the SAT in UC undergraduate admissions coupled with the creation of the of a criterion-referenced test by College Board that would be used in said admissions. By relying on a criterion-referenced test to evaluate an applicant in UC admissions, the reliance on comparing GPAS will be reduced. This is ideal, as mentioned earlier, GPAs are prone to inflation. Considering that 46 out of the 50 American states utilize common core standards in their educational systems, the majority of American students are educated on similar academic topics. Therefore, if a criterion-based test was created that assess a student’s knowledge on these topics, a majority of students would be prepared to take it.  

Creating a new criterion-based would be a challenging task, however as the College board would need to design it. This could take lots of time to complete, and would require a large amount of funding due to the fact that research on student’s knowledge would have to be completed before the test is made. Some students who are not in states with common core standards would also suffer as they would not be as well-prepared for the new test as students in common-core based states. Because criterion-referenced tests do not include a bell curve in the way that they assess students, the students will not know how well they performed in comparison with their peers.

Solution #2 Implications

We suggest that the criterion-referenced test be based on common-core standards. The California state board of education states that the following subject are a part of the common core curriculum: science, reading, and writing. For this reason, we believe that the criterion-referenced test should also cover these topics. An example of a subject standard that the criterion-referenced test could assess is to “Demonstrate understanding of figurative language, word relationships, and nuances in word meanings.” This standard comes directly from the california common core standards, which should serve as the backbone for the content that the criterion-referenced test assesses. 

Solution Evaluation slide:

While it can be seen that all solutions have their benefits, it is clear that solution 2 is the best solution. Solution 2 should be implemented as it eliminates norm referenced tests in college admissions, which have been proven to be give advantage to certain socio-economic groups. 

In addition, the college admissions counselors are not disadvantaged as they still have a quick, cost-efficient numerical way to compare students. Hence, UC undergraduate admission officers should eliminate the use of  norm referenced tests in admissions in order to eliminate the inequality that students applicants face. 

The “Dougherty” Stigma

We often hear the words mental health and its’ importance, but what really is mental health? Mental health is the psychological, social, and emotional well being of one’s self. This has a really big role in schools, and students day to day life. Not only does an unhealthy mental health play a big role hindering one’s education, but the education system often inhibits students from being able to be in a good mental health. It’s important to look at our school specifically because there is often a stigma placed upon our “competitive mindset” that hasn’t left students at their best.

73.1% of a survey taken from 82 students at Dougherty report that the “competition” at Dougherty has a significant effect on their mental health. When asked where they feel the competition comes from; they answered their peers. We are their peers, we are the students that pressure and maliciously tactazize against one another for a higher and better grade. The ones that peer over your best friends shoulder to make sure you got a slightly higher grade. We are the kids who walk through the halls seeming as though we have it all put together. Yet we are also the same students that don’t. We are the student’s who constantly feel as though we are one step behind, always carrying a grade lower, never measuring up to the “Dougherty standard.” We complain about the competition yet we are the competition. We complain about the pressure yet we are the ones pressuring. A quote I believe sums it all up comes from an anonymous student survey; “Everyone feels that in order to be validated at DV he or she needs to have the best grades, SAT scores, and extracurriculars. But parents don’t push that. Students push it.” This quote proves that the pressure and unhealthy stress students face at DVHS is mainly caused by us which gives us the ability to directly change this “stigma.”

But why change it? Competition is good, healthy, and incentivizes students to work harder. Yes, but not when compromising our mental health. 85 % of students surveyed significant self associate their grades with their self-value. I implore you to ask yourselves is this normal? Just because we do not fit into an unachievable box shape are we any less? One student’s response shed the unfortunate truth of our school; “As you walk through the halls you can see students talking about their grades and tests. Barely, if ever, do I hear a conversation about things normal things teens should be talking about. Everything is about school. Kids cry if they fail tests, and you can see the sleep deprivation and stress in every kid’s eyes at this school.” Is this the competition we claim is healthy? Is this the incentive that we want to encourage? This alone is proof enough that change is needed, but let me take it one step further. We do all of this for our “future.” What if the very thing that we put ourselves at risk cannot be achieved, because we have blocked our path. Heidi Thompson’s master’s theses bring us some statistics; “If the child’s ability to establish positive interpersonal relationships is compromised, or they feel as though they are not apart of the school, it has been found that there are social adjustment difficulties. Such difficulties include juvenile delinquency, school dropout, and poor mental health.” We are working for something that brings us consequences. How can we allow ourselves to continue with such behavior when there are possible long time risks because of the environment we contribute to and continue to allow ourselves to be in. As I looked through my survey results I saw somewhat an understanding of how wrong and toxic this environment is but I didn’t find anything calling for or incentivizing change and action.

So let me be the person to incentivize change, and explore the possibilities of growth. You don’t gain anything by comparing yourselves, you simply loose joy. Maybe there are other contributing factors, and it’s not possible to change your environment in a day, but you can change your relationship with your environment. You don’t have to miserable just because “the standard” says you do, and you can be proud of your work no matter the grade. And when kids say, “I stayed up the entire night studying,” 70% of the time they really mean, “I started at like midnight and then listened to music, took breaks, and maybe spent like 2 hours studying.” Take everything with a grain of salt, because you might think that your a mess but other people you put together. It’s important to measure yourself by how you did in the past and not by how everyone else is doing. Focus on improvement within. Sure, you can think “in the real world, you will get compared to everyone else” but this thinking really doesn’t lead to anything. You can’t really control how other people do—only how you do. 

You complain about the pressure yet you are the ones pressuring. You complain about the competition yet you are the ones competing. If you want the Dougherty environment to change, change your relationship with the environment. We are students, yes, but we are not just students. We are human beings capable of change and capable of making the change. The root of the problem begins with us, so to solve this problem we must begin with ourselves.