There’s certainly significant inequality in K-12 education, but that has to do how we finance K-12 schools, not with tests themselves. If the test still serves a purpose, it’s to confirm how well a student learned using a single standard, as course rigors vary and grades are assigned inconsistently across the nation. Single-section tests will also likely make test prep even more widespread than it is today, BTW.
It’s unfortunate that the testing industry (I include the ACT, College Board and prep industry) has so perverted something that is necessary in college admissions, that is a standard objective measure of preparedness that can be used across all students. My prep back in the late 70’s was doing a few practice tests from a commercial book, and that was probably more than what most kids did then. I think the free online Khan Academy tutorials are great in somewhat leveling the playing field. At some point students have to take some accountability for prep. However, when testing agencies allow for different conditions (multiple tries, super scoring and now selective sectionals) it creates opportunity for gaming through opportunities to score better not based on the substance of what is being tested.
As to the question of timed tests, you will have this in college. Yes, there are the occasional “take home” exams, but the vast majority of exams will have a time limit. Almost all licensing exams have time limits as well. Going into the real world, being able to identity the nub of the problem and processing information quickly and accurately is important in many industries, whether it relates to tasks that are time sensitive or it relates to productivity. However, when a test is designed where applying specific time strategies results in material changes in results, then the time frame is too short, and you are not testing for knowledge/familiarity. I am curious why the ACT chose to have time as such an important factor vs the College Board.
I think the average ACT for juniors at our school is around 18, there are very few that I can think of that have hit 30 or above no matter how many times they took it, even those who paid for test prep. It’s unlikely that the intelligence level is that much lower than other schools, but obviously they aren’t prepared for the test material. It’s a pretty good school with some really good students, but it is a small rural school and doesn’t offer many of the things that some schools are able to offer. Most people go to regional public schools, and there are very few that I can think of that superscore, so I’m not sure how this will affect kids here.
SATs and ACTs we’re supposed to measure aptitude but with all the prep I don’t think they serve their purpose anymore- except in ranges - for example (ACT) under 18, 20-24, 25-29, 30+. A 20 ACT versus a 30 ACT likely correlates to intelligence. I know several kids that we’re slackers in high school and got really bad grades but scored but scores 30 plus on the ACT. They turned it around in college… So there is that benefit of showing the kids that have the aptitude but for whatever reason are doing so well in school.
Perhaps colleges will go to a subject test requirement like Georgetown. And like they have in the UK (A Levels). Students can choose the subjects of their choice depending on their ability and it’s a measure of learning the subject matter and being able to take the test in a timed fashion.