Donner postulates that: “When the best applicants are not admitted, the overall quality of the University is decreased…” Interesting enough, the author fails to provide any concept for just who are the best students. He further asserts that: “…the SAT still provides a reliable general comparison of one person to another.” This is utter balderdash. Obviously his implication is that those who score higher on the SATs are ‘better’ ones. I seriously doubt Mr. Donner, by his erroneous claims, that he has had any serious interaction with an inner-city high school.
As a High School tutor for two years in Sacramento, I was privileged to work at both an inner-city high school, much like the one I attended, as well as a suburbanite public school. It would be safe to say that the students at the inner-city school came from impoverished or nearly impoverished households. Meanwhile, suburb high was swarming with rich kids driving BMWs, insinuating that most came from rather non-impoverished households to say the least.
Teaching classes at both schools, there was a very visible gap in curriculum and job duties. Due to lack of facilities, equipment and an environment conducive to learning, my role as teacher was that of counselor/circus ringleader at the inner-city high school. It was in sharp contrast with the more well endowed counterpart: ample supplies, air conditioning, smaller class sizes and… guess what else? Yep- we helped them study for the SATs.
At one school I was essentially a Kaplan representative, giving helpful hints on how to master the exam that was in the way of their entrance to a school that ‘only accepts the best.’ We went over practice tests, calculators to use, and a full blown tutoring session on analogies. At the other school, trying to motivate students to even take the SATs was challenging. There was no time budgeted to take practice tests. There was one class offered after school; however, at a place where most students considered their options to be the military, community college (my route) or working alongside liberal arts majors at fast food joints – why bother?
Some opposed to SATs as a basis for admissions laude organizations like ‘By Any Means Necessary’ (BAMN), which promote the idea that the SATs have ‘an inherent race, gender and ethnicity bias’. Yet even BAMN is willing to stand up for the SATs when it suits their political agenda (see ‘Admit the 800 Now’ on their web site). Whether the SATs have an inherent bias worked into them or not makes little difference, when there is a clear bias when it comes to preparing for the damned test. Critics for and opposed to SATs are apparently oblivious to this.
Frankly, I doubt that there is a particular ethnic group that has a greater aptitude for approaching the questions on the SATs. However, if a group that has greater access to tools that booster overall education, and prepares them for the SATs, they will probably do better. Aptitude for ‘the basics’ that the SAT addresses is important for college admissions, but does this mean it should be at the expense of those who cannot afford to attend schools that provide help if needed? I agree with BAMN when they say that the SATs are used to keep many people out of college. Yet the minorities I taught at the more affluent school did as well as their other colleagues. So rather than ethnicity being the heart of the issue, class seems the more apparent one.
When Alan Donner and other proponents for standardized tests claim that they provide a reliable comparison of one another, in regards to students, it makes me gag. When the playing field is as level as Candlestick Park during the ’89 earthquake, there is no way in hell it’s a reliable comparison. Before we can really decide whether the SATs are a necessary admissions evil, we have to address the issues of classism and inequality in our school system. Don’t just listen to my story though, do your own research, take a look at our school system from the inside.
« return.