Prep Courses and Retakes--What's The Future of Standardized Testing?

posted by Curt, on February 10, 2008 09:06 am

Today I read an article in the Deseret News about a kid who got a perfect score on his ACT exam. Supposedly he's the only one in the state to have done it on the October iteration of the test. You've got to be impressed when someone does something like that--especially a high school student. However, as I was reading along, I found out that this was his fifth time taking the test. I had no idea that people took the test so many times. Ros kind of laughed at my naivety . . . her response was "of course they take it more than once." So, I thought I would do a search to try and find out how many people got a perfect score on the ACT on their first try. I couldn't come up with a single result (although I'm sure there are those who do). All this confirmed a suspicion I've had for some time: a number of these students think (and not totally without reason) that their performance on these standardized tests controls their destiny. Why else would someone put themselves through the pain of a college admissions test more than once? I only took that ACT once, and I checked out an old ACT book from the library and looked over it for a couple hours the night before the test. That was the extent of my test prep. Nowadays, it seems that the question is no longer "what did you get on the ACT?" but "what did you get on the ACT last time?"

It also got me wondering, how meaningful are standardized test scores in this day of prep courses and retakes (assuming they were ever meaningful in the first place)? This, of course, begs the threshold question of what exactly standardized test scores are supposed to measure. If they are supposed to measure ability to study for and perform well on a generalized test, then they are probably doing a better job than ever. If, instead, they are supposed to provide some kind of measure of raw intelligence, then the retakes and preparation is probably rendering them less effective (as well as potentially biasing those with the $$ to afford expensive classes and materials).

Here's something from FairTest (an anti-standardized testing organization):

Increasingly the ACT and SAT are seen as 'wealth tests,' not accurate predictors of a teenager's capacity to do college academic work," Schaeffer continued. "That is a major reason why more colleges and universities are moving toward test-optional admissions." FairTest calculates that more than 740 accredited, bachelor-degree granting institutions now have test-optional policies for substantial numbers of applicants, with 21 colleges and universities dropping ACT and SAT testing requirements in just the past year.

FairTest also claims that more and more colleges are devaluing the ACT/SAT scores in their admissions process (see their list here). However, the list of schools they provide hardly reads like a list of preeminent educational institutions. If you take the perspective that students and their parents are "rational actors" and this test preparation and retaking craze is a response to legitimate economic incentives, it seems that standardized testing is alive and well even though tests are no longer seen as a one-shot deal that measures ability.

While I'm conflicted about whether the prep classes and the retaking makes standardized testing results less meaningful than they otherwise would be, I am not conflicted about whether I think this is a good thing: I absolutely do not. The pressure has got to be incredible--and I doubt that the pressure is coming from the students themselves. That, to me, does not seem to be in the nature of most high school age students (and that's probably a good thing). It may be coming from parents, it may be coming from educators. But wherever it comes from, it's not a good thing. And I have a feeling that, even though FairTest's current announcement of the death of standardized testing is probably significantly exaggerated, if this keeps up there will have to be some changes in the standardized testing regime. It creates in students an attitude that their ticket through life is guaranteed by high test scores. I see this in some of my fellow law students (and perhaps even myself, at times). The attitude is that, so long as you are in the top XX percent of the class and on law review, you are guaranteed XX. While to some extent is true, I have a feeling that the world hits individuals whose most significant ability is taking an exam better than the competition smack in the eyes rather quickly.

I don't know that standardized admissions testing should be eliminated (especially given the volume of applicants), but I think that schools would do themselves (and students) a favor if they really deemphasized the importance of good scores on these exams. One of the things that would enable them to do that is if high schools would stop giving so many students straight A's. But grade inflation is a topic for another post . . .

Add New Comment

Your Name:
Your Comment:

Security Code: