<p>Inside Higher Ed posted an interesting story about a student who objects to standardized admissions tests and refuses to take them. She is still planning to apply to some colleges that are not test-optional, hoping to engage them in a "conversation" about this.</p>
<p>Together with Lawrence University, which is test-optional, she posted a video on Youtube.</p>
<p>See the story, video, and reader comments here:
News:</a> 'Conscientious Objector' to Testing - Inside Higher Ed</p>
<p>Well, I admire anyone who is willing to stick up for their principles at a personal cost, but I think his “conversation” with schools that require test scores not going to consist of much more than a form letter that starts out along the lines of:</p>
<p>“Dear Objector,
We regret to inform you that we cannot offer you admission to XXXX University…”</p>
<p>Or a common app error telling her that a required field has been left blank so she can’t submit</p>
<p>And since XXXXX won’t accept the student, let’s hope there are Plans B, C, etc.</p>
<p>If Lawrence is a possibliity, there are other peers that don’t require those tests, either.</p>
<p>I wonder what the gang at [The</a> National Center for Fair & Open Testing | FairTest](<a href=“http://www.fairtest.org%5DThe”>http://www.fairtest.org) thinks of this. Could they have put her up to it?</p>
<p>Since taking the test is not the real issue she is protesting but instead having to submit it to and be used by colleges for admission, wouldn’t this kind of protest be more credible and have more impact coming from someone who took the SAT test, scored 2300, and then refused to submit it to any college for purposes of admission.</p>
<p>^^Yes, that would be a true act of civil disobedience at its most powerful. But in my experience the students who object to tests on the basis of some sort of “principle” develop these principles only after they discover they are also lousy at taking standardized tests.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That definitely makes sense</p>