Nowadays, the admission criteria of institutes of higher education present some important biases. Given that high school grades are not a good-enough measure for the required skills of a college attending student, a major weight is given to SAT scores. However, recent studies have proven that some students find it harder than others to do well in this type of assessment.
Against: Zoe di Lieto
Today, the general application requirements to enter universities are grounded on three main points. Firstly, academic credentials, which typically stand for the transcripts of the high school diploma or the final score achieved on the national required exam of each applicant’s country. Secondly, recommendation letters, which are usually provided by someone from the applicant’s educational history, who knows the student well and can assess the student’s potential in pursuing a higher education degree. Lastly, most universities require standardized test scores (SAT), which should provide a good measure of the academic ability and English proficiency of the applicant. This test was introduced in 1926 and, since then, its name and scoring have changed over time. Its goal is to measure the level of literacy, numeracy and writing skills that are essential for the college education that the student will have to face. Â
Standardized tests are seen as a common denominator for all students that are about to start a new academic phase, given that grading criteria may change all over the world, and the applicants’ high school GPA may not be as informative on the abilities and cleverness of the student. A standardized test is, instead, norm-referenced and follows a bell-curve distribution, provided by the structure of the test per se, which is divided into different sections that include multiple choice questions to be answered under tight time constraints. However, is it completely true that the test scores convey an objective representation of the abilities of the applicants?Â
Over the past few years, universities as well as other institutions of higher education have started noticing the impediment to diversity that the admission criteria, mainly based on the SAT scores, imposed. Test scores, according to statistics from the Civil Rights Project of UCLA, vary across different ethnic and socio-economic groups. The scores of White and Asian test takers are usually high, while Black, Hispanic and Native Americans achieve outcomes which are on average worse, together with low-income test takers. In fact, as for the reading part, the average score for Black students in 2010 was 99 points behind the one of White students. Factors like these can be explained by the unfairness of the modern society: in the US, at least generally, black students are less likely to attend well-staffed elementary and secondary schools, with respect to white students. In other words, even if the test is the same for every applicant, societal inequality creates a systematic bias which results, on average, in wealthier students doing better.Â
The consequences deriving from this unfair assessment of future college students typically translate into a growing inequality trend. Those who have the chance to properly prepare for SATs or similar tests, will be able to access high quality education and, subsequently, better working opportunities. These concerns have led to new measures being taken by academic institutions, such as providing more detailed information on the admission criteria and on how much the test scores will be weighed. This way, students will be able to understand whether to submit their scores or not. Furthermore, universities should consider additional variables in the admission process, such as the resources each applicant has and their high school background. In brief, the error or bias that the test inevitably creates should be firstly acknowledged by academic institutions, so that it is possible to isolate it, for it not to become a negative factor affecting the applicant.
Pro: Jeremy Hadrien Bacigalupi
It is undeniable that the abilities of a child cannot be measured with a simple number between 0 and 1600. Most would agree that the future prospects of a 17-18 year old should not be based on their performance in a single exam on a single day. From the perspective of an applicant this truth seems self-evident, as who would want their life up to that point to be reduced in such a way. However, from the perspective of universities this line of reasoning has a core flaw; a university is not measuring a single applicant. They are not even measuring 10 applicants, or 100. They are evaluating hundreds of thousands. In this context the need for a method of filtering, however crude, becomes vital for the ability of the application process to operate at any level of efficiency and fairness.
As the largest developed country with both a highly vaunted university system and prevalent use of standardized testing, the United States is the best example of both the shortcomings and the necessity for such testing. Within the US the trend of college applications has been two-fold; increasing numbers of applicants and, unsurprisingly, decreasing acceptance rates. On a macro level, more applicants are good thing, more applicants mean more students and thus more productive members of the economy/society, however, for the limited resources universities are endowed with this has been far from ideal.
Data from Common App, a NGO responsible for the vast majority of applications, has shown a 21% increase in the number of applications between 2019 and 2023. Alongside the average number of applications increasing by 7.3%, the result has been 1.5 million more applications. Historic data from the National Agency for Education Statistics (NCES), a government agency, show that universities have only increased their funding for ‘Student Services’, which includes admissions, by a rate of 5% yearly (compounding). Compared to the 10% yearly rate of increasing applications, the issue becomes apparent: there are more applicants than resources to evaluate them all. Herein lies the value of standardized testing such as the SAT/ACT.
What these tests, such as the ones listed, provide is a simple standardized way to filter applicants. The merit implied in metrics such as grades and extracurriculars are highly dependent on factors individual to the applicant and their life situation. An A+ in calculus from a school such as Stuyvesent, a prestigious public New York highschool, is not equivalent to that from a school in the ghetto’s of Detroit’s Belmont. The controversies surrounding sports coaches’ role in applications in 2019 highlighted the untrustworthiness of evaluating applicants purely on extracurriculars. However, beyond overt cheating, a score in an exam such as the SAT is equivalent to any other in the country. Unlike the exponential amount of resources required in evaluating more criteria, evaluating a score is as simple as comparing it to the relative mean of others. Assuming that the exam is well designed, the score provides some amount of baseline information on a candidate in such a way that is comparable to other candidates, without having to worry about variations inherent in localized evaluations (grades, school projects, ect.). Though the US has been the prime example of this, it holds true everywhere.
This is not to say standardized exams are perfect. Like any area of education, students with motivated, and generally wealthier, parents have an advantage. Those able to afford tutors and less constrained by having to work/help in the household are better able to perform in the exams. Underfunded schools will be less able to provide the materials necessary to practice and study the exam. However this limitation is also present in any other criteria of evaluation; wealthier families can afford more extracurriculars, or tutors to help low grades. The benefit of standardized exam, is, as their name suggests, their standardizations. Regardless of your background and schooling, when you take the test you will be looking at the same (or essentially the same) paper as thousands of other people in the country. Rich or poor, motivated or apathetic, you will have the same opportunity to show your skills in Maths, English and reading as everyone else. It is in essence, the great equalizer.
Hi, it’s Zoe Di Lieto here, student from the Economic and social sciences course here in Bocconi. I grew up in Rome and I’ve only recently moved to Milan for university. I’m a passionate reader, I love to travel and I like to play a little guitar occasionally. I’d say the fields I’m most interested in are literature, philosophy and cultures, especially how different cultural background affects social behavior.
I was born in New York, but moved to Europe as a teenager. I am currently a second year BEMACS Student. I enjoy writing as a means by which to record and disseminate the things I find interesting such as politics, history and culture.
