Recently, the president of the University of California System suggested that the system should not require its applicants to take the SAT I standardized exam. He said he questions whether the exam accurately tests a student's knowledge of his high school curriculum. It clearly does not. But the UC president fails to see the SAT I's usefulness in creating a standardized measure of academic development. Any attempt to throw this measure away is misguided.
An admissions process without the SAT I is a potential nightmare, especially at large state schools. As the number of applicants increase, so do the number of variables. Every high school is different; it is impossible to compare grade-point averages or class rank from one high school to another. The way GPAs are kept is not even standard. My high school district used a 4.6 grade-point scale, yet it was possible to get above a 4.6 if one took Advanced Placement courses.
It was difficult to compare GPAs from two students in the same school, let alone use that number to compare two students from different high schools. We were not alone. Every high school district has its own unique grading policies. A GPA number alone means nothing.
Class rank is also of little value. It measures how students perform relative to their peers. This number can be misleading. Students from a "magnet" school or private school are at a disadvantage because they are competing against students who have already met the same admissions standards they have. One cannot compare the class rank of a student from such a school to that of a student who comes from a lower-caliber school. There is a difference between competing against college-bound students and against gas-station-bound students.
The SAT I, though neither perfect nor comprehensive, is the only standardized way to compare students from across the country. Some may say the SAT I is biased, but this argument is ridiculous. The SAT I tests basic math and verbal skills that any college student is expected to have.
Any decent high school education should prepare the student to take the exam. If a student attends a substandard high school, then he must take the initiative and study for the SAT I on his own. Expensive, and often useless, preparatory courses for the exam are not necessary. Practice can be found in inexpensive preparation books or in the public library. Every student has an equal chance to succeed on the test. Those who work harder and who study harder do have an advantage.
This is what a meritocracy should be built on-the notion that the determination of students who want to go to college will drive them to do what they need to do to succeed. We should not reward laziness and complacency by allowing someone not to take the test.
Eliminating the SAT I has an even greater impact on large state schools than on smaller schools. According to The Chronicle, the UC system has 170,000 students on its campuses. Its admissions process must be vastly different from a school such as ours, which has a little over 6,000 undergraduates on one small campus. UC must be able to quickly place students into a campus.
It is not feasible to take that much time when tens of thousands of applications need to be reviewed. At a small school that has eliminated the SAT I, like the many liberal arts colleges in the northeast, it is easier to look at the entire applicant rather than just a set of numbers.
In addition, state schools are much different from small private institutions in terms of selectivity. State schools take as many students as they can. They are not looking for the brightest students, just students who meet a minimum standard.
At a smaller school such as Duke, the admissions office needs to look at the complete applicant to judge his or her worth. These types of smaller schools look only to admit talented students who can make a contribution both to the university and to society. This goal necessitates that applicants are seen not as mere numbers. However, even in this setting, the SAT I is crucial for comparing students across high school districts.
Usually, California is a national trend leader. The UC system took a giant step forward with Proposition 209, which ended legal race- and ethnicity-based discrimination. It was bold in its assertion that students should be judged by their academic prowess and not by the color of their skin. Unfortunately, the UC system is poised to take a step backward as it re-evaluates the SAT I. Hopefully, its leaders will realize the folly of this notion and continue to admit students based on the best academic data available.
Dave Nigro is a Trinity senior.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.