Atlanta—There’s no such thing as the Testing Police, but there is such thing as Robert A. Schaeffer, who’s been known to sound the siren about how colleges use standardized tests in admissions.
On Tuesday, Mr. Schaeffer, public-education director for FairTest, a watchdog group, described his plans to compile a “testing hall of shame” — a list of colleges that use cutoff scores in their evaluations of applicants. He hopes that the list will persuade such institutions to stop relying on minimum ACT and SAT scores, a practice that the National Association for College Admission Counseling, among other groups, has condemned.
Mr. Schaeffer’s remarks came during the annual conference of the Association of College Counselors in Independent Schools here at Agnes Scott College. Mr. Schaeffer predicted that more and more colleges would go test-optional as the “demand” for such policies grew among future applicants.
This was a sympathetic crowd. Many attendees have long worried that admission exams loom too large in the lives of teenagers. “If it were up to college counselors,” Mr. Schaeffer said, “the SAT would be gone.”
Since it’s not up to them, Mr. Schaeffer urged the audience to ask admissions counselors to explain the reasons for their colleges’ testing policies. He encouraged them to remind students about affordable test-preparation options. And he said that once students received their test scores, counselors should advise them “to get on with their lives” instead of chasing the higher scores promised by some test-prep companies.
“We’ve got to put a damper on the insanity,” he said.
If nothing else, the “testing hall of shame” would make for a memorable press release in a world of bland press releases. Mr. Schaeffer, who hopes to publish the list in the fall, said it would include only colleges that explicitly state their cutoffs (some institutions use them without saying so). This would be one distinction that colleges probably won’t tout on their Web sites.
9 Responses to ‘The Testing Hall of Shame’
jffoster - June 24, 2010 at 8:12 am
Many actions and policies have unintended consequences. This one seems highly likely to. Actually, colleges may very well assert pride in being on such a list rather than “shame” and prospective students will be motivated to given even more attention to College Boards and ACTs than before. “Shame” is in the eye of the beholder and goree. And how many people outside of the National Association for College Admission Counseling even know what National Association for College Admission Counseling has condemned? Or care? Such academic association tend to be far less important than they think they are and would like to be.
22228715 - June 24, 2010 at 8:28 am
jffostser – perhaps. However, I have certainly talked with prospective students who are great students but have standardized test anxiety, and so make admission application decisions based on testing requirements. I try to encourage them to use other factors first and just bear the tests, but for better or for worse, applicants think like consumers. So, I suppose it could become a list of pride… if the place is so selective and comfortable that it doesn’t care whether it’s turning away some top candidates before seriously considering it, and is OK with lots of high school admissions counselors steering students away from it. I suppose there are a few of those out there that would do just fine even then.
jffoster - June 24, 2010 at 8:42 am
Mr. …15 (2), there are. And they have so many applicants, that this is apt to provide them an additional winnowing tool. And some of those such places may be places where high school counselors steer students toward. A propos of which…. how much steering do high school counselors actually succeed in doing? My recollection was that high school counselors were largely irrelevant. I didn’t even discuss where to go to college with mine. And several of my friends’ children didn’t either.
11150257 - June 24, 2010 at 10:40 am
This ongoing dialogue over the use of standardized test scores in college admission is considerably overblown in its importance. In general, human performance can be illustrated on a bell curve; whether it is running a marathon, participating in a hot dog eating contest, lifting weight, or taking a standardized test. The truth is, some will excell, many will be in the middle, and some will do poorly. Anyone who, at some point in their career, read a substantial number of admission applications will have noticed that high performing students tend to have high test scores, low performing students have low test scores and most everyone else’s academic and test performance are clustered arount the center. The applicants close to the decision margin require extra scrutiny and the use of multiple criteria, including test scores, helps in the evaluation process. The most capable will be admitted, the least capable will be denied. The outliers are applicants with low grades and high test scores and, conversely, high grade point averages in demanding courses and low test scores. This is where the real use of test scores at individual campuses becomes an interesting debate, although it applies to a relatively small number of applicants.The real power driving the public perception that test scores hold the key to success (or failure) is the American fascination with lists – like America’s best colleges, which, in turn motivates institutions to publicize their scores and tout their selectivity in order to position themselves as high quality options in the college search process. So the controversy is really more about the perception of tests and their use than how colleges apply them in the selection process.
unabashedmale - June 24, 2010 at 1:24 pm
I condemn any standard that keeps substandard students from getting all the government educational aid they can get.Higher education is an entitlement to all Amercicans and illegal aliens not matter how little they deserve it.
gadget - June 24, 2010 at 4:01 pm
In workforce development programs, test scores are often used as absolute cutoffs for entrance criteria. Since these programs are often tied to apprenticeships, employer partnerships, and jobs, being eliminated by a misused test score has real material cost.In community colleges which offer developmental education, test scores are used for placement decisions. The wrong placement can lead a student to take one or two additional semesters of developmental courses, even more in some circumstances. This is a huge opportunity cost for the typical community college student.The problem with using test scores this way is that testing, by its nature, is a probabilistic science. Tests are statistically constructed using probabilities of replicability. Just look at the standard error and confidence levels for each student. A test score should never be the most important or only factor, but often is. Community colleges feel it is just too expensive to use a combination of predictors such as test scores plus high school grades, which actually have more predictive value. Test scores are easy to use, easy to interpret in a blind sort of way, and much less expensive to use.Every student who is misplaced and hence spends extra semesters (and money) taking developmental courses they do not need should be able to sue. Likewise, every student misplaced into a course they cannot possibly pass should also have the right to sue. If community colleges had to defend their placement practices, these practices and misuse of test scores would cease quickly.
d_and_der - June 24, 2010 at 5:24 pm
#4) You are exactly right. Life is a bell curve and if you fall on the low end of it on some criteria, so be it. #5) You must be one of those on the low end of the bell curve. And, no one is ENTITLED to anything. You EARN what you get.#6) You are right. There are false positives and false negatives even on valid and reliable tests. Therefore, other predictive criterion are necessary. In an era of horrifying grade inflation, I am at a loss as to what those other criteria may be.
softshellcrab - June 24, 2010 at 6:26 pm
@d_and_derRegarding post #5, I think you misunderstood. The writer of that post was just being sarcastic. He actually agrees with you.
d_and_der - June 24, 2010 at 11:01 pm
my appologies to #5 if #8 is correct that you are being sarcastic.my statement still stands for anyone who actually thinks they are entitled to anything.