Check it Out:

Information Literacy In The News: SAT and ACT

teacher proctoring his students during an examination
Photo by RODNAE Productions on Pexels.com

Two quick disclaimers before we dive into a look at this week’s article. First: This is not really “news” as such. Of course the topic is not news at all, but it is being discussed right now in the context of the pandemic. And this specific article we will look at is not “news” either – it was written last January. But this is a good jumping off point to think about our issue.

The second, very obvious, disclaimer: I’m not an expert here. I don’t do testing, I don’t do test prep. (Tho, I was hired at an agency to do standardized test prep for potential grad students who paid a boatload of money to the agency. Maybe unsurprisingly, the “getting paid” part of the job also seemed to be a scam, and I bolted before starting.) The last time I had anything to do with SAT/ACT stuff, I was 17 and did well enough to get a college scholarship. As we will see below, that was probably pretty predictable to an outsider looking in at my reasonably-fancy nearly-all-white girls high school.

My knowledge is not really about the tests themselves. But I do have a boatload of time spent at grad school and beyond studying statistics, research methodology, and using those skills to sift obvious fairy tales from the more accurate stuff. Standardized testing, to the surprise of absolutely no one in our audience I’m sure, is a frequent subject of both obvious fairy tales and quests for good information.

This week we will look at this blog article. Jon Boeckenstedt is a self-declared partisan on this issue. A person with loads of professional experience in college admissions working with SAT and ACT issues, who speaks up about them fairly often. I found this article linked on Twitter, and realized I had read it already. It seemed relevant to our population of library people – who are largely involved in education from kindergarten through college level work.

A lot of things have changed during our global pandemic crisis – and making SATs and ACTs more optional, or optional at more places, seems like a really good trend. Some of the ideas here are probably changing as we speak – and hopefully for the better. We will walk through the arguments he makes about making these tests optional, or at least relegating them to the lower levels of “accuracy” they deserve.

But the gist that I took from it, in case you do not want do wade through it all: these test seem to do a pretty good job of identifying rich, White, and Asian test takers – rewarding them with good scores. Good Scores = Good Schools, and push everyone else right out of contention. They do not make college admissions more fair; they add to the exclusionary nature of “good” schools.

He starts off: “I’m not going to tell you what to think.  I’m going to tell you what I think, and you can feel free to agree or disagree, of course.  It’s yours to do with as you wish.” I do like this in a discussion! And then he walks us through the most common reasons for using or requiring SATs and ACTs.

  • “Point 1: The tests are standardized and thus fair because everyone takes the same exam.  This is known as the “Common Yardstick” theory, and is partially correct, in the sense that the ACT and SAT are normed tests, which means a) half the people will score in the top half, and half the people will score in the bottom half, and b) your position in one administration of the test is likely to be close to your position in another.  That’s what these tests do: They sort people on some particular skill or ability. What this skill or ability is, and how much it contributes to your potential to succeed in college, is still undefined: Not even psychometricians seem to know for sure (more on this further down the post).
    “But this “standardization” does not mean everyone has the same chance to do well on those tests; it’s not like the competition is fair.  We don’t have a national curriculum that the test can measure a student’s achievement against, for starters. We don’t even have a standard approach to teaching mathematics.”

    He inserts this chart that he created. “It shows ACT Composite score, and the breakdown of each composite score. High scores are at the top. For instance, of all the students who scored a 33, about 15% were Asian (green), and 75% were Caucasian (gold). Do you notice a trend? And do you see what happens to the pool when you think a 30 is the floor for your student body?” (That is: if a college looking at students to admit decides they will only admit people who have a 30 or above – the lack of ethic diversity at that level is pretty hard to overlook!)
Scores by Ethnicity

Then he shows another chart he created with ACT data, this one comparing family income to scores. It’s also pretty stark.

From his article: “You decide.  If these were just scores, and understood as accumulated cultural capital, it might not matter.  But these scores make a huge difference in who gets into college in America, and perhaps more to the point, who gets into which college.  If that fact doesn’t bother you, you’re effectively saying that you believe low-income students of all races are dumb, and unworthy of a chance at education. “

I mentioned before that I did pretty well on the ACT. No idea how well – it was a long time ago! – but it was a pretty good score. So I’d expand this idea of family income that he is discussion, in a larger discussion than is happening here, and say that in my experience and the work I’ve done to look at these kinds of tests – the variables of having involved family members and being super lucky with high school probably also push up your scores.

My family was not wealthy, but cared very much that I went to college; and I was lucky enough to go to Rich Kid Academy, instead of the reasonably cruddy public high school in the middle of the cornfield where we lived. The reading I have done shows me how much those two things probably pushed up my scores. (My own lack of interest, combined with a lack of motivation – I stayed out most of the night before the test with a friend, then slept in my clothes on her couch for a couple of hours before groggily heading in to take the early morning test! – probably pushed my scores down. Oh well. My poor parents.)

  • “Point 2: The “Diamond in the Rough” (DITR) theory.  This heart-warming approach posits that there are low-income and/or first-generation, and/or students of color out there who will be disadvantaged if tests go away, because the tests help them get identified as bright.  And of course, this is not completely wrong, but it’s only true because a) some college admissions officers don’t know much about tests, and b) they do know that people ask them about average test scores all the time, again (here comes the absurdity) even though they vary so strongly with wealth. If you get the impression of a dog chasing its tail, you wouldn’t be wrong.”

    “It’s a sad state of affairs in US higher ed that students from less advantaged background need the equivalent of a lottery to get a chance, but that’s exactly how things shake out. And the corollary to this is that there are loads of smart, capable students with lots of maturity and abilities no test can measure at the other end of the standardized testing scale who get overlooked because of the tests.  That’s the cost no one ever considers when they spout the “Diamond in the Rough” argument: Human potential that goes unrecognized because of a test, developed by private companies whose only obligation is to themselves. It’s great that one student gets a chance. But what about the 500 who don’t?”

And this article goes on with more points to make. But I think we all have the gist for the moment. Please read the rest of it right here – there is a lot of interesting information here.

And of course, this is only one person’s views on these standardized tests. Yes, a person with knowledge and experience. (And the occasional inserts here of a librarian!) But of course: it’s important to look at different expert opinions when you are thinking through an issue – especially when you are potentially working to come up with new and better ideas. So here are a few other sources you might consider:

I have no statistics or research to show any kind of correlation, though I’d be surprised if someone didn’t have these – but have you looked at how expensive prep classes are? And the huge array of books, flash cards, apps, and everything else??? Anything with such a thriving income stream spawning from it just makes me see inequity. I have taken other standardized tests, and I absolutely guarantee that knowing how to take the test – getting test prep – makes a HUGE difference. If money = good score, then equity and fairness have left the building.

As we wrap this up, I know a lot of our teachers are frustrated with the standardized testing that happens throughout education. That’s a larger topic than we look at today, but I would guess that some of the same things will be repeated in that discussion too.