In such a diverse nation, with its plethora of cultural and religious backgrounds, socioeconomic standings, and varied passions, no one citizen is the same. Although each and every one of us blossomed into unique individuals, we can all come together in agreement that standardized testing is the worst. College applications are stressful enough without having to worry about getting your ACT score up ten points. Before you can even take the ACT, you study for hours on end for the SAT only to find out the school you’re applying to doesn’t even regard the score. Of course, this is all much easier if you are privileged enough to have a tutor or to sell a kidney for extracurricular prep classes and the stack of textbooks that come with it.
But this is not the case for everyone, especially not for the students of underprivileged communities who, while they may be unable to pay for the bells and whistles that prepare them for such important examinations, are still required to take them.
In the age of DEI, the desire to ensure an equitable admissions process has led universities and higher institutions of learning to diminish the importance of standardized test scores and to, in some cases, not consider them at all. This not-so-subtle approach has sparked conversation surrounding the limitations of DEI protocols and whether these explosive actions actually harm students, both recipients and bystanders alike.
As of August 2024, after two blind test takers sued the Law School Admissions Council, the analytical reasoning section of the LSAT was removed due to its discriminatory nature. The section, which assesses the test takers ability to use critical thinking when solving logic puzzles, does not require charting or illustration. However, the two plaintiffs argued that in order to excel in the section, one must draw out the information in the stimulus to reach a conclusion, and therefore, blind test takers are at a disadvantage.
LSAC offers accommodations for students with physical or mental handicaps to ameliorate any discrepancies. Blind test takers may ask for a copy of the test in braille as well as 100% more time to complete each section. Apparently these adjustments were not sufficient, and instead of creating further accommodations, LSAC ruefully eliminated the section completely, all in the name of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
At one point, accommodations bridged the gap between typical test takers and those with limitations, allowing them to rise to the level of their peers who are unencumbered by such constraints. Test takers who did not rely on adjustments could take the test unbothered, and those who did rely on the extra time, printed exams, or additional breaks could receive them. Although this sounds like a step toward an equitable admissions process, accommodations were not enough. The whole section had to go.
These extreme measures taken to provide a false sense of inclusion are nothing but the consequences of radical capitulation forced by the pressure to include or be excluded. The fear of being “canceled” or tagged racist, sexist, etc. has shackled institutions of higher learning, threatening them into removing all measures of merit.
Eliminating standardized tests is not the solution to diversifying institutions of higher learning. If the consensus is that the elimination of ACT and SAT scores puts more minorities on college campuses, we should look further into the reason why minorities cannot meet these requirements the way wealthy white students do. If the end is to have more diverse college campuses, the means cannot be a complete annulment of all qualifying measures.
Last year, Dartmouth announced that it would be reinstating the ACT and SAT requirement for applicants, affirming that the combination of test scores and grades provide more insight into a student’s potential for success than grades alone. Both Harvard and Dartmouth cite diversity as one of the stimuli for the return of test score requisites. Apparently, standardized test scores provide more data about a student’s socioeconomic background, allowing the institutions to give opportunities to students from lower-income households. Harvard refers to its own research which concludes that “there is no evidence that students from higher-resourced backgrounds outperform students from lower-resourced backgrounds”. That same study also shows, however, that students from the top 1% of the nation’s wealth were 13 times more likely to score above a 1300 on the SAT. So which is it? Do standardized tests yield an equitable measure of a student’s intelligence? Or do they cater to the privileged students who scored high because of support and extensive preparation?
Truthfully, Harvard and its ivy-league siblings determined the reliability of standardized test scores to indicate a student’s future performance in college. It is well within their right and duty as institutions of higher learning to do so. However, it is not fair to masquerade the approach as a DEI initiative when the data says otherwise. Inclusion and admission based on test scores are not mutually exclusive, as these universities seem to believe. Instead of using loopholes and hiding behind fake activism, these institutions should stand proudly for what they believe is the most effective admissions process and then act to create the most equitable way to help underprivileged students meet the standard.
If we want more diversity on campuses while still holding students to a standard of excellence, we should provide them with the opportunity to triumph. Underprivileged high school students should be offered opportunities to take prep courses, as well as the materials they need to succeed, without the hefty cost. The key to mastering an exam, especially one that grants access to higher education, should not lie between the pages of a $150 workbook. The solution is not to ameliorate the historic inequality of education by removing all standards required to measure excellence, and it definitely isn’t to reinforce such a biased system by gatekeeping resources for the 1%. Let’s keep the bar high and help every student, no matter their background or the constraints placed on them, reach higher and higher.
