Allie Kauffmann is a high-school senior who dislikes standardized tests. Sam Kauffmann is a filmmaker who thinks the world of Allie, his daughter. These conditions inspired the following video, a nine-minute gripe about standardized tests and their role in college admissions.
Now, before you jump to conclusions about Allie’s SAT scores, they were “really good,” says Mr. Kauffmann, a film professor at Boston University. But first Allie had received a not-so-great score on the PSAT, which prompted the family to spend about $800 on a test-preparation course. That her score improved by 300 points only convinced Allie of the inequity of the whole system.
“What if you don’t have the money? Too bad,” Allie says in the film. “You’re competing against kids who do. It’s like playing basketball against kids on ladders.” (For a visual, fast-forward to 2:51.)
FairTest, a testing watchdog group that often barks at the College Board, worked closely with the Kauffmanns on the film, but did not have any artistic control, says Robert A. Schaeffer, the group’s public education director. (Mr. Kauffmann says he covered the small cost of the project.) The video echoes many of FairTest’s concerns, especially those about coaching.
Mr. Kauffmann says he and his daughter hope the film will convince students and parents that admissions entrance exams are “unfair, biased, and illogical.” To that end, the Kauffmanns have started an online petition urging colleges to stop using the ACT and SAT. They seek 10,000 signatures (as of Wednesday evening, there were 206), and plan to submit the final document to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. (The association has about as much power to alter its members’ testing policies as it does to melt all that snow in the Midwest, but never mind.)
Mr. Kauffmann says some of his daughter’s friends have declined to sign the petition for fear that they might harm their chances of getting into college. But Allie’s not exactly bashful: According to her father, she included links to the video in each of the college applications she submitted.
Is this a bold act of bravery? Or a clever way to demonstrate “independent thinking” to all those admissions committees? You decide!
17 Responses to One College Applicant Puts Her Testing Gripes on Video
richopp - February 3, 2011 at 7:46 am
The real issue in today’s world is not the test itself, which I am sure every professional educator knows is not a valid measurement of intelligence. I believe that college admissions teams use test scores IN CONJUNCTION WITH all the other information submitted about a given student.
We all know that admission is based on a number of variables. The ones that seem to bother people the most are admitting a student who is not qualified so that he or she may play a major sport, or because their parents are able to donate a seven-ten figure sum to the school’s endowment fund. Unfortunately, in today’s world, the latter is more prevalent than the former, thus admission to schools like the Ivy’s and so forth is very limited for many qualified students. I would guess that the other variable that sticks in people’s craw is the legacy situation. One name for that: Bush. And no, this is not a political statement, merely one that proves the point.
If test scores are used in conjunction with two or three years of grades, teacher recommendation(s), the applicant’s essay, and, if possible, a personal interview, I would guess that admission today is no more prejudiced against less-than-spectacular SAT and ACT scores than it has been in the RECENT past. To prove this, the graduation rate remains lower than 60% across the nation, so it is clear to me that admissions teams have little better than a 50-50 chance of selecting the best qualified student. Given that statistic, I would want to use every possible fact when reviewing a student’s application. What I don’t see happening is a post-mortem on the selection committee’s prediction success. If fewer than 60% of the students they accept after a rigorous review actually graduate within six years, I believe I would be spending all my time trying to determine why my committee was failing in their job. I have no knowledge of any business that would survive very long if fewer than 60% of sales were successful.
Finally, most of my peers are getting ready to retire after long careers as attorneys, physicians, engineers, senior executives, and so forth, and most were quite successful by any measurement one would take. The fun part is that we recently realized that none of us would be admitted to our Alma Maters today with the grades and test scores we had 50 years ago. The question begged here is simply one that asks if today’s students are poised to achieve more than we did in the world given the difficult and competitive admissions processes now in play.
glord - February 3, 2011 at 8:36 am
richopp says, “the graduation rate remains lower than 60% across the nation, so it is clear to me that admissions teams have little better than a 50-50 chance of selecting the best qualified student.”
Perhaps the graduation rate would be worse if these tests weren’t used. I don’t know, it is just a question.
joneseagle - February 3, 2011 at 9:04 am
It is not an intelligence test. It is a test of your probability to be successful at the next level of competition. You need certain skills and thought processes to be successful.
The SAT tests your capability to think at a higher level.
The ACT tests whether or not you hold certain basic knowledge that has been determined to be helpful at the college level.
Neither is perfect. But then neither are you probably. At least I never claimed to be perfect. I have no crystal ball; only an understanding better than most of being recognized to have the potential and then not realizing that potential. There are some things that neither test can predict and actual success in the higher education environment is one of them. The test can predict probability not fact.
Each component of the admissions process is equally important. You demonstrate your passion for success with your grades; your passion for community involvement by your volunteer experiences; your expectations for success by your application essay and your interview; your test scores record your expected probability for being successful at the next level. Nothing more. Each component is important and taken together provide a picture of what caapability you have not that you will actually achieve it.
The capability to achieve is self-determined. You establish that level of self-determination by our own expectation of what you expect to achieve; not what mom or dad or grandparents expect you to achieve.
To those who will jump on my for not condemning the ACT/SAT first off – I am one of those who did well on the test and did poorly in college. Withe the support of my academic dean who saw something of himself in me I succeeded in 5-years+5summers. Now with two masters, I am writing my dissertation on developmental math students. So I have been there.
As long as you feel the tests are a problem, come up with a better measurement tool for predicting capability.
If you need to condemn the pricey test taking courses, find alternatives. I did and do recommend one in particular that if the students work the process can help improve their scores better than Allie Kauffmann’s course. I have no connection to the program except to state the students who have worked it have been successful in raising their scores. http://number2.com has worked for my students looking to improve their test scores.
kakalak - February 3, 2011 at 9:14 am
It seems to me that the US cannot eliminate SATs and ACTs, some sort of standard means of measure, in the absence of any school-leaving exam. The IB, the British A-Levels, the French baccalaureate exam, the list goes on and on. And those are tough exams that make the SAT look easy.
bigfruitbasket - February 3, 2011 at 9:38 am
The SAT/ACT have as much predictive power for success in college as Paul the Octopus had when predicting the World Cup. Come to think of it–Paul was a better prognosticator. All things being equal, student motivation to succeed works as well for me as do some standardized test. Besides, how do some of the test questions like analogies have anything to do with college? High schools across the country don’t teach that stuff. I get the writing, reading and math portions of the test–those finally make sense.
The whole standardized test system is one BIG racket. The mob should be envious of the monopoly that ACT & SAT have in this country.
robert_wyatt - February 3, 2011 at 10:28 am
““What if you don’t have the money? Too bad,” Allie says in the film. “You’re competing against kids who do. It’s like playing basketball against kids on ladders.” ”
She is the one on the ladder,
darccity - February 3, 2011 at 11:12 am
She is barking up the wrong tree. The SAT originated to offset the biases inherent in high school grade point average and class rankings. Teens from higher income families earn higher gpa’s in high school, and so do white, non-Hispanics — a bias even greater than for “standardized tests.” Also, wealthier families don’t require their kids to take tiring, long after-school and summer jobs that take away from study and learning. Finally, high income parents live in school districts with the best reputations or send their kids to top prep schools (nearly half of Princeton admits are prep school grads). By contrast, ghetto and Appalachia schools seldom even offer honors, AP, or IB courses that boost gpa’s and are preferred by college admissions reviewers. SAT and ACT scores are the only indicator colleges have to correct for all these racial and income biases by testing for underlying intelligence and ability to learn (college potential) rather than for previously learned knowledge. Prep courses don’t help much — in any case, even the poorest student get a review book from the library for free! Note the film compares PSAT score with SAT: scores almost always rise for the latter which is taken several months later in the mental development of a teen. Gripes about SATs may be more from the wealthy who cannot game that part of the application system the way they did everything else. College, once the great leveler back in the days of the GI Bill, now is the single greatest source of inequality of opportunity! Harvard now gives a free ride to anyone from a family with under $65K income, but that is only 3% of freshman admits. And Harvard — where our son went and thrived — has done everything it can to end favoritism (end legacies, athletic preference, frats, add affirmative action, etc.). Amherst, Williams, Brown, Dartmouth, and “Swat” have been even less successful at evening the admissions playing field.
notpc - February 3, 2011 at 11:38 am
In the fifties, each college or university had their own so-called “placement test”. Essentially everyone who applied was admitted, but they were shunted to appropriate first year classes, regular, honors or remedial (bonehead, we called it) English, for example. But, to keep the numbers from overwhelming the system, the bar was set very high (unlike today) and the flunk out rate was often over 50%. Everyone had a chance (tuition was a whooping $45/semester), and those that worked hard, studying 2-3 hours per classroom hour, which would be 32 to 48 hours per week for a 16 hour course load, would do well (compare that to today’s pupils in college: perhaps 10-12 hours of study per week). So, either weed them out with standardized tests, or let the lot of them in and flunked out the unmotivated ones. Our little film maker has failed to point out that that there exists a standard distribution describing human intellegence. So, 50% of test takers have IQs (no longer a PC datum) less than 100!
We need good carpenters, mechanics and electricians more than another dull-witted socialogist! College nowadays is no bargain, and is highly overrated. We must rethink our educational model if we wish to compete in the world market of commerce and technology. Better to produce a few really well trained, bright graduates than an army of dim-wits with degrees in foolish programs.
moonbow - February 3, 2011 at 12:36 pm
a
t_rey - February 3, 2011 at 3:00 pm
The reason standardized tests were introduced was to act as a way to “level the playing field” between various levels of high school difficulty. For instance, if you go to “We give everyone A’s high” and graduate with a 4.0 that means less than if you attend “You will fail High” and get a 3.8. However, colleges and universities have no way of knowing which high schools are easy to get good GPAs in and which ones are not.
Are the SAT or ACT perfect? Not by a long shot, but without something suitable as a replacement, it seems a necessary evil. Standardized tests are not going away, and neither are those who profit from them. Perhaps to mitigate the income inequality, there should be some sort of program for those in lower income brackets, but good luck passing that. Perhaps individual college exams that vary from year to year are a solution, but that brings the cost factor back as the more wealthy can afford to take more of those tests. It just seems that unless someone can offer a viable alternative, there is little to be gained by eliminating this particular part of the problem with university/college admissions.
louisie - February 3, 2011 at 5:32 pm
One thing that I don’t think many know is that most (many) college admissions officers I know, and all of the ones who work at selective universities/colleges, are NOT members of AACRAO (that group is mostly college registrars, some grad/professional school admissions people, and enrollment folks from open-enrollment places like community colleges). Most college admissions people I know are members of NACAC (National Association for College Admission Counseling). Just a little tid bit for those who may be curious.
(I also agree that NACAC or AACRAO are equally powerless to stop reliance on standardized testing…that has to come from higher ed leadership).
sand6432 - February 4, 2011 at 12:43 am
Another factor in admissions is where you went to high school. Admissions offices have a pretty refined knowledge of what schools have good records of producing graduates who can succeed in college and later in life. And don’t forget that interviews conducted by alumni volunteers also carry some weight, at least in deciding between otherwise equally well-qualified candidates. My sense is that SAT and ACT scores probably provide a threshold level that all applicants are required to meet, and thereafter all the other factors mentioned in comments above come into play, including the geographical distribution of the class being admitted.—Sandy Thatcher
impossible_exchange - February 4, 2011 at 11:04 am
Meritocracy is bu!!$h!+ say what?
tdb489 - February 5, 2011 at 3:16 am
Basic statistics tell us that multiple test criterion are better predictors of success/failure than fewer criterion. Individually, most college predictors are weak, but what are the alternatives? Look at the number of successful entrepreneurs who quit college because it contributed little to their potential success (B. Gates for one). If universities pick and choose criteria at will, lawsuits will be forthcoming. Miss Kauffman should be admitted to college today without finishing high school and based only on the video. (Assuming it is her work and not her father’s). Why would do that? Because, her high school probably has nothing more to contribute to her education. She should not be slowed down by the system. However, we will not admit her today because that really would be biased and unfair to others on the playing field.
grendel - February 5, 2011 at 5:34 pm
I can only assume college admissions committees are smart enough to compare the SAT scores to family income proxies on the application. (e.g. home address = 200 Park Avenue, NY NY.) But admissions committees don’t care because they want the rich kids, too — and in some cases, they want them more. That’s the real dirty secret, not the SAT.
ryanpmc - February 6, 2011 at 1:07 pm
“I would guess that the other variable that sticks in people’s craw is the legacy situation. One name for that: Bush.”
Or Kennedy
“And Harvard — where our son went and thrived — has done everything it can to end favoritism (end legacies, athletic preference, frats, add affirmative action, etc.)”
not exactly sure how “frats” (the proper term is “fraternity”)- organizations you join once you are in college- have any impact on admission.
t_rey - February 7, 2011 at 2:14 am
I’m not really sure what your point is ryanpmc. So Bush and Kennedy were both legacies? Just because there is also a democrat who was a legacy does not negate the fact that legacies inherently lead to inequality. So darccity used the term frat instead of fraternity? What exactly does this show? Especially since frat is standard parlance for fraternity.
Since you were wondering about fraternities, while in many schools fraternities have little impact on the admissions process, at some of the elite schools that have fraternities dating back to the 19th century (or in some cases the 18th, often tracing their history to pre-dormitory residence halls), the members of said fraternities often found themselves in positions of power or at least influence upon admissions committees. Even if someone was not a legacy of the school, or if the school had dropped the idea of legacy admission, or if a candidate had failed to meet the criteria for legacy admission, if they were a potential legacy to the fraternity, such a fraternity might use its influence to admit said individual to the school. Additionally, once on campus, such fraternity systems can continue the inequality by effectively separating the upper class from the lower class students along similar lines of “legacy.” This perpetuates the inequality long after college as these older fraternities continue the system of showing undue preference for members and relatives of members in employment, promotions, etc. While it hasn’t tended to be a problem with sororities in the same way (since very few sororities or female fraternities have as lengthy histories), it is still a problem. In general, though, the fraternity system has also led to a gender gap. Again, this is (or was) more of a problem at elite “Ivy League” schools, but it can exist at schools where such a fraternity has become national and thus has chapters on other campuses.