Seeking middle ground in the SAT debate

by Michael Calderone

(U-WIRE) NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (Rutgers U.) -- Debate concerning the validity of the SAT in college admissions involves two opposing sides. One that considers itself the progressive voice, usually testifies to the notion that the SAT is unfair to minorities and should be disqualified as one of the determining factors utilized in college admissions. The opposing viewpoint is often scorned for upholding a "right-wing" agenda for governing education by not supporting affirmative action or "race sensitive" admissions policies. When debating this issue, it is of vital importance to try to understand the motivation of the individuals who created the standardized test, and whether their vision has been achieved.

In 1933, James Bryant Conant, president of Harvard, acted upon a radical idea for American education. Observing the fact that his institution comprised a homogenous stock of students, typically educated in prestigious and costly prep schools, Conant decided that he needed to enact measures to attract talented individuals from less affluent backgrounds. Along with other faculty members, Conant came to the conclusion that the SAT was a worthy examination for allowing intelligent yet economically marginalized individuals to attend such a prestigious university, seen as a bastion for the offspring of a wealthy elite. Within a few years, following the use of the test at Harvard, the Educational Testing Service was created, and the SAT has become the most widely used test for college admissions across the United States.

The Jeffersonian idea of "natural aristocracy," as articulated in a letter to John Adams, greatly influenced Conant to push for a test that could potentially transcend class boundaries and lead to great advances in American society, coming into fruition as a new radical democracy. Jefferson's idea for a "natural aristocracy among men, made up of people who have virtues and talents," was a seeming rejection of an elite based on wealth and family lineage. Conant had intended on greatly altering the structure of the country to an idealized American meritocracy by extending the benefit of a college education to individuals who were typically excluded from attending such renowned institutions, who would work as public servants and help govern the country.

Contentious opponents of the standardized test are critical of the idea of preparing for the examination, citing that the bulk of individuals preparing, and arguably gaining an edge on competition, are wealthier and merely manipulating the current admissions system to retain their elevated position in society. This viewpoint is valid because the college diploma definitely elevates the individual in society by helping to gain a higher-paying career.

However, the aforementioned viewpoint is incorrect in asserting that only wealthy individuals who pay for test preparation will succeed.

SAT preparation, although it may claim to raise a student's score, does this by making the student feel more comfortable with this form of testing, and merely forces the student to practice examples in preparation books that can be purchased in almost any bookstore. Success is still predicated on the fact that the student must make a concerted effort to obtain a desired score. Merely sitting in an SAT prep class will not aid the student who does not actively engage the material.

Similar to the idea that placing a book under one's pillow the night before an examination will influence the outcome, the osmosis factor -- in which an individual gains knowledge by being present while passive -- is false. The only advantage for the student who attends an SAT prep course is an added confidence. Regardless of the reputation of an SAT prep company, no student is going to jump from a verbal or math score of 400 to 800.

Unfortunately, some of the harshest critics of the SAT depict their ideological opponents as being both racist and classist in maintaining the significance of a standardized test and the possibilities it may offer for acceptance and scholarships. Political correctness has a way of stifling debate about an issue because of the tendency to castigate one's opponent as a racist upholder of the current class system.

Regrettably, this tendency has provoked many institutions under pressure to completely disregard the SAT test. Although the test should not be the only factor in college admissions, dismissing its relevance, the reason it was created and the potential for it to aid many individuals is an unfortunate consequence. Disregarding the SAT is not going to benefit American education. A more pressing situation is funding inequities in public education.