Most of us in the college counseling world spend more time thinking about and dealing with issues related to standardized admission tests than is warranted (then again, some of us may feel that any time at all is unwarranted). That has not lessened in the era of test-optional admission.
I have had lots of conversations this fall with students and parents about when and whether to submit test scores at test-optional colleges. My rule of thumb has been to submit scores that are at the upper end of the middle 50% range, but I have also told multiple students that I can’t guarantee that my best advice is right, that in this new test-optional landscape all of us are making it up as we go along. Earlier this fall I had a debate, and perhaps a rare disagreement, with a colleague over whether a student should submit a composite ACT score of 34 at highly-selective colleges and universities, given that savvy and strategic students aren’t submitting anything but very high scores.
I am also finding that students and parents can’t get their heads around the concept of admission without test scores, believing that test-optional policies are temporary, even illusory. On the day that PSAT scores were released earlier this week, I had calls from several parents anxious to find out the scores. I resisted the temptation to tell them to relax because they don’t really matter.
Will the elimination of test scores as an admission factor for the University of California system put to rest the frenzy over testing once and for all? Despite how big and influential that system is, I suspect not.
NACAC publishes a twice-weekly digest of college admissions news called Today in College Admission. The past two issues referenced editorials criticizing the University of California’s decision to abolish the use of test scores altogether, one from the Los Angeles Times and the other from the Boston Herald. I found it odd that two different newspapers would choose to editorialize so close to one another, and wondered if we are about to see a backlash to the move away from admission testing.
It was even more odd when I read the two editorials. They were almost word for word the same. I checked to see if the two papers are part of the same group, and apparently they aren’t. I reached out to the editorial page editors at both publications for an explanation, but haven’t received any answers. Shanda Ivory at NACAC shared that the articles for Today in College Admission are aggregated not by NACAC but by a company called Bulletin Media that publishes the digest. A Bulletin Media representative stated that the publishing platform missed the similarities because the URL’s for the two editorials were different.
As a detective I resemble Inspector Clouseau more than Sherlock Holmes, and I am fully capable of adding 2+2 and getting 5, but here’s what I think happened. The LA Times editorial was published on September 1, the Boston Herald one on September 6. It makes perfect sense that the University of California decision would be a natural editorial topic for the LA Times. I also noticed on the Boston Herald website that some opinion pieces are labelled “Boston Herald editorial staff” while others are labelled “editorial.” The editorial about testing falls into the latter category. While the Herald does not attribute the editorial to the LA Times, I am guessing that it adapted the piece from the West Coast paper.
I use the word “adapted” because the two editorials are close to, but not, identical. The Boston Herald piece removes the LA Times conclusion early in the editorial that “UC should reconsider this policy and use at least one test as part of its admission process, though it should be free to students with a few no-cost retries.”
The two editorials also diverge in the closing paragraphs. Here’s the LA Times version:
“One way that UC could use standardized entrance exams fairly is to calculate a test score range that would indicate a student has what it takes to succeed in college, and then rely on grades and other factors. This is similar to how many prestigious colleges do it.
“An applicant wouldn’t get extra ‘points’ for a score beyond proficiency, which would tamp down the parental race to spend thousands on the best test tutors and endless taking of the test. Once a student does well enough to qualify, there would be no point in trying to improve the score.
“It’s a shame that the university asked for a well-researched study of the issue by faculty and then decided to ignore their recommendations without considering the ways in which college entrance exams could be used to make better and fairer decisions about which applicants receive the coveted acceptance email.”
Here are the last two paragraphs of the Boston Herald editorial:
“While it’s true more affluent parents can afford tutors for their children and pay for multiple test-taking, entrance exams at least give students the chance to demonstrate their ability, on top of grade history, essay and letters of recommendation. Test-taking fees should be on a sliding scale, based on financial need.
“If there’s one thing the Varsity Blues scandal has taught us, it’s that there will always be those looking to game the system and give their children massively unfair advantages. We need more ways to level the playing field. Entrance exams are one of them.”
So is taking another publication’s editorial content and changing it common or considered ethical?
This blog, of course, is not devoted to journalistic ethics but rather the intersection of ethics and college admission. So let me consider a couple of issues of substance in the two editorials.
The LA Times argues that the UC system should use at least one test as part of its admissions process, but does not specify that it should be the SAT or ACT. A report issued by a task force appointed by the UC system’s Academic Council has recommended that the University consider instituting its own admission test that is more tied to what students learn in class than either of the national tests are, but the UC recently decided that developing its own test would be too expensive and time consuming.
The pro-test argument is that sans testing, high school grades become far more important at a time when we know there is grade inflation and student-mental-health-aware generous grading as a result of COVID. The Times editorial claims that “grade inflation is widespread at affluent high schools,” apparently referencing a 2018 study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
The Herald editorial concludes that entrance exams are a way to “level the playing field.” That is a common defense of testing tied to the idea that standardized tests help identify “diamonds in the rough.” That idea gives more credit to test scores than deserved. Test scores may provide another metric to compare students from different high schools with similar grades, but test scores are far from unflawed as a metric. Not only do they correlate strongly with family income, but affluent students may also have the ability to take tests multiple times and also spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars for test prep, and as a result two similar or identical scores may represent different realities. Those factors argue against leveling the playing field.
The interesting suggestion in the LA Times version of the editorial is that colleges use test scores as a benchmark or threshold of proficiency, such that if a 1200 represents the qualifying score then a 1270 or 1350 should provide no additional advantages in the admissions process. I think that’s an interesting way to get rid of the false precision that too many people assign to SAT and ACT scores.
The Los Angeles Times may be right that the University of California is making a mistake in moving away from testing altogether, but any test should measure actual learning and readiness for college work in a way that it is not clear the SAT and ACT do.