Probably not in my opinion. Many schools have already made the SAT/ACT optional and it’s kind of becoming less popular every year. Honestly, I don’t even really get the point of it. Your high school grades should be enough to see whether your qualified to do academically well in the institution. So I think the number of colleges who make the SAT/ACT will certainly skyrocket.
For many of these schools, it’ll depend on whether the faculty feels like admissions “chose right” after these students have been on campus for a while. Certainly, a lot of highly selectively schools have mastered this, some as long ago as 40 years! You can bet that the testing industry will work hard to to stay relevant though, whether it’s for college admissions of assessing high schools.
I suspect that post pandemic there will be a lot of things that are forever changed in a number of arenas, education being one. It’s possible that recorded content, originally prepared for online classes, gets incorporated into schooling, for example.
The answer to your original question is NO. Universities are desperate to increase minority enrollment and to increase FTEs (more money) . As a result, undergrad. classes have become high school classes with little serious content and high grades.
[8 ball pool](https://8ball-pool.io)
Let’s hope so. Grade inflation in the US is rampant. Standardized scores are the only way for schools to look at real national metrics.
Standardized testing isn’t vanishing because it’s a multibillion dollar industry in this country. However, if some kids can pay to prep and others can’t afford to I do question the real objectivity of the test results.
Testing prep is a real issue and mitigates the whole concept of objective equalizer. However, we can’t penalize the folks who have the resources and choose to use them to improve their scores. Maybe we could move to a model where they consider the range of scores or the chronology and assign some “coaching up” factor as opposed to singularly considering top results.
However, it’s really no different than kids who have families willing and able to get extra coaching and private lessons for athletics, theater, and even academic camps. We know a lot of athletes in FL. The ones that are playing college ball pretty much all focused on elite travel teams, extra coaching, private lessons. The kid certainly has to have innate talent, but you’d be surprised how much better they get with good instruction, training, focus, etc. In my own household I’ve witnessed the growth of D (theater performer) through both very hard work AND excellent training that was not cheap. Without that, my guess is she would not have been nearly as competitive for top theater programs.
I guess we can say not really fair for the less fortunate, but as a parent, if you can make that happen, why wouldn’t you?
That seems like an apples and oranges comparison because the point, I thought, of a standardized test was to assess ability without specific study because isn’t that what HS school already provides via transcripts? To objectively quantify academic readiness? Or ability? Not sure of the right word but without the bias a teacher may bring in grading. Once you start “studying” for the test then it’s just another test, like all the tests taken in high school so why require it?
Training for athletics or theater or musical instruments may increase your chances of admission to a school but it’s not “standardized” (whatever that really means) and not everyone has to participate.
The thing is, it’s not possible to male any test 100% fair. The standardized test shows : national ranking which may/may not be based on test prep. It is the only stat for which there is an equal metric fir all.
Many decades ago, few if any studied for the SAT. But as a low income SES, I was at the library with the SAT book. Today it is much easier with many very good to great programs online free or fir less than $50. For all those who want to argue about unfairness, please go ahead. I am not going to debate “fairness” I think kids who are prepping in any form will improve their scores. So there is some personal work involved whether it’s the free Khan/or the 3k personal tutor.
Having kids compete grade wise is a joke. Some schools still make A’s hard to get/others say anyone with an 89.5 gets an A. Colleges know many schools but not all. Why take this off the table? Kids can still report other factors which colleges consider.
Training increases your skills as noted above. My kid used to do a club sport and got much better during that time. Practice helps. Likewise, a kid who shoots baskets every day will improve his shot.
At least with the SAT, all the prep you need is Khan Academy which the overwhelming majority of kids can access. The bigger issue would seem to be the poor quality of education in some of the middle and high schools across the country.
@vpa2019 Well, nothing is perfect. Colleges cannot see the kid who stayed up all night and worked with the teacher to push through a difficult subject. Or, the kid who was at home with a sick parent and still studied for Calc. What they can see is an overall picture. I don’t think tge test is perfect ( nothing is) But I do think it gives a great data point esp given the inflated A grades that seem to be the norm in many high schools.
In answer to the OP’s question: I’m stating that colleges will continue to use standardized testing. The usefulness of using it is another discussion.
MODERATOR’S. NOTE
Take the debate to PM or agree to disagree. But move this discussion forward.
Pros . The test is as fair as any measure. Test preparation materials are widely available and it says something about grit and resourcefulness if you take advantage of them. Test results are a cross check on grades.
On the con side, the disparity in different groups’ results is being used in the Harvard suit (and by the DOJ recently at Yale) to argue against affirmative action. The University of California system is dropping the test contrary to faculty recommendations —guess which groups do well on the test resulting in over representation?
Will be interesting to see how these tensions play out. My bet is test optional which preserves maximum flexibility for the admissions office
Test results, while definitely not unbiased, are more fair than comparing students solely on the basis of grades: especially given the wide discrepancies in grading policies between state to state, or even between districts (as in my state, where some districts utilize percentages vs. a 1-4 proficiency scale which inflates grades a ton.) If schools don’t go back to 100% requiring tests, it’s likely that they’ll still utilize test scores by being “test-optional:” essentially, if you have good scores that correlate and back-up your grades, it can’t do anything but help your application
I believe a while back there was a newspaper article with Harvard’s (Former?) Undergraduate Dean of Admissions, who said that SAT Subject Tests were considered > ACT/SAT in terms of assessing academic strength given that, unlike the SAT/ACT which are pretty much based on your test preparation (taking practice tests over and over again after you get the basic concepts down; the SAT Subject Tests REQUIRE you to actually know what you’re studying, whether it’s the specifics of cell organelles or the impact and ramifications of a specific treaty in history. While yes, there is test prep available for SAT Subject Tests as well, it’s just like studying for any academic course in school: either you know the fact or you don’t. AP tests are pretty similar in that regard as well, and the bonus is that you can get intro college credit or placement at many schools for it (no more/less general education, if your college requires you to take it.)
I definitely agree that SAT Subject Tests > ACT/SAT; while I took the ACT because it was easier than the SAT (from practice tests,) a huge factor in my decision is that I loved reading, and with 3/4 of the test being reading based (English, Reading, and “Science,” which probably has 1-2 questions max that test actual knowledge rather than knowing basic concepts like reading a graph and understanding different viewpoints,) the test was SOOO much easier than the SAT practice tests were, which are much more aligned with SAT Subject Tests in that the Math section forces you to actually know what you’re doing on the non-calculator free-response section, rather than relying on a calculator to get you through the test like with the ACT.
Just my two-cents 