A SAT refers to a standardized test common in the US from 1926 administered with the intention of checking a student’s preparedness for college. On the other hand, an ACT is administered in the same capacity as the former covering language, mathematics, and science multiple choice tests. Using the two to determine the future of students is completely ineffective as far as the student’s assessment is concerned. A research by the National Association for College Admission Counselling (NACAC) showed that colleges which did not use SAT and ACT recorded a rise in the admission of underrepresented students unlike those that enforced the standardized policies. Moreover, the research indicated grade point average (GPA) as a better determinant. Clearly, the fear the SAT and ACT inflict on students accompanied by its ineffective technique of assessment is pushing the subjects away prompting a move against their implementation.
Test-taking doesn’t measure a student’s ability to succeed according to studies. Comparisons between those who went through SAT to qualify for college and those who accessed schools that have it as optional show no great differences in grade. This is an indication that going through the standardized tests does not make a student any better or prove him or her as better than those who opted otherwise. Moreover, the study indicates that” students with quality SAT scores compare poorly to those with lower SAT scores in colleges” an indication that using it as a one of proof of intelligence is wrong. Ability should be measured by an average of consistency from the student’s school grades as it covers value over a long time, unlike the short SATs that may be affected.
The too much emphasis placed on the SAT is not only an advantage to the well-suited student but a great downgrade to those whose cases are incompatible with the standardized tests creating unfairness in assessment and denial of opportunities. Creation of optional methods to reduce over-reliance in them would lead to equality (Webster, pg. 23). This is also because the standardized methods are not only being used as a qualification to college but also as a merit factor in acquiring scholarships and ranking in education systems. In a case where a student has got an ability that can be displayed and explored in a different way, the student ends up unrecognized and thrown out of the system just because what he can offer is not noticed. This happens mostly with talents.
For a long time now, SAT has been subject to allegations of biases based on race. Scores obtained through the system have been found to overrate a certain group of people and clearly produce patterns that show undermining of certain races. Furthermore, discrimination based on income levels has also had an impact on the outcome of the SATs with students from families that are financially stable or renown automatically scoring highly in the tests, unlike the others. This is because those who are financially stable can access SAT revision classes and buy books to guide them in their preparation for the test unlike the underrated. This has triggered the use of optional test methods by schools to cater for the underrepresented students. The policy of education requires it to provide conditions for fair competition amongst the students for valued output to benefit the country’s working environment with skilled labor.
On the students’ part, preparation to take on SATs has proven hectic with lots of content to be covered in reading causing time consumption. However, this time that is spent on an ineffective test method would serve the students better if they used it for their schools’ studies to improve their grades. With all the questions around the effectiveness of the standardized test techniques, the students would also gain better if they used the time to invest in the co-curriculum abilities and be all round. This affects those who are not SAT-masters and cannot carry the extensive content in their brain into the tests discrediting them as failures compared to the others when they might possess even more ability than the ones who grasped the content overnight. While a good mark acts in benefit of the student who scores it, a poor score does not and should not indicate the other way.
For the new SAT, completely different materials are required plus new activities and books. This is strenuous to the students due to the change. This changes also take time to be molded and interacted into the system by the teachers and other people administering them. Furthermore, for the SAT, issues with the return date of the results have been a cause of dislike by its subjects. SAT and ACT take like three weeks.
The standardized tests set time specifications that block a student from proceeding with a question if the time is exceeded. Not all students can peruse at a similar speed. Moreover, a student who has been perusing and practicing English for a couple of years can’t come close to a colleague who is familiar with the dialect. The main area in which a non-local English student can be contrasted with that who is familiar English is the math segment, this does exclude math word issues present on the test. This means that SAT and ACT create an unfair competitive environment through its lack of balance for students originating from different cultures or areas that might affect their ability to understand and answer the tests. “The SAT and ACT bring stress to the students” according to research by NACAC due to the weight they possess as a decider to whether one would join college or not. This imposes a threat to their school work where they are expected to be at peak-end, concentrate and score good grades. Standardized tests only work to prove how a student can perform under pressure unlike the GPA hence should not be used to evaluate a student’s total ability as they don’t show any qualities of the students.
Since 2002, when the United States added more accentuation to government-sanctioned testing, it has dropped in worldwide instruction rankings. From 2002-2009, the US went from being positioned eighteenth on the planet in mathematics to being positioned 31st on the planet (Meier, np). The rankings in science additionally dropped comparably, while perusing perception remained to a great extent unaltered. As per the National Research Council, even motivation programs attached to state-administered testing results are not attempting to enhance understudy cognizance, comprehension, and information. Understudies who know about examples can figure out what the responses to a state-sanctioned test could be by just knowing a bunch of answers with sureness. This consistency mirrors the common human inclination that happens in each activity or response we have in any undertaking. It additionally implies test scores can be high without reflecting understudy understanding. Brookings found that up to 80% of test score enhancements in test scores can have nothing to do with long haul learning changes (Buchmann, pg.438).
Understudies learn in an assortment of ways. Individuals have a wide range of qualities that may not be reflected with regards to a state-administered test. Attributes like imagination, eagerness, compassion, interest, or cleverness can’t be followed by these tests, despite the fact that they are very attractive qualities in current professions (Kobrin, np). A state administered test could decide the information an understudy has about melodic hypothesis, yet it can’t pass judgment on the nature of a synthesis that an understudy may make. Numerous instructors are being assessed on the work that their understudies do on a state-sanctioned test. In light of the classroom grades accomplished, an educator may get a raise or be let go from their activity. This makes a large group of learning issues. First of all, just the understudies who are performing ineffectively on testing re-enactments get a lion’s share of the consideration from the educator, leaving great understudies to battle for themselves. Instructors at that point start to ‘educate to the test’ rather than showing subject materials to acquire the required outcomes. This makes a decrease of higher-arrange considering, lessens complex assignments, and forestalls subjective comprehension.
As per the Centre on Education Policy, from 2001-2007, “school locale in the United States lessened the measure of time spent on social examinations, inventive subjects, and science by over forty percent.” SAT and ACT testing took a higher need in the U.S. in 2002, at the time of establishment of the no child left behind the movement. In only 7 years, the United States dropped 13 spots on the planet training rankings. In 2002, the U.S. arithmetic was positioned eighteenth on the planet. In 2009, the U.S. was positioned 31st. All center subjects have pursued indistinguishable example of diminished viability from state-administered testing went up against a more noticeable job in U.S. instructive circles.
State-administered testing is an evaluation instrument that is sensibly moderate for most geographic areas. New York State, for instance, spends just $7 per understudy on government-sanctioned tests. Oregon burns through $13 per understudy, while Georgia burns through $14 per understudy. For a few states, in any case, the tests can be very expensive. Hawaii spends more than $100 per understudy for government-sanctioned testing. It is $114 per understudy in the District of Columbia. Delaware burns through $73 per understudy, while Massachusetts burns through $64 per understudy. Since so much financing is integrated with the outcomes from government-sanctioned testing, school regions over the United States have moved their class calendars to oblige educating in testing regions. From 2002-2009, as a feature of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ activity, the measure of time spent on science, social investigations, music, and craftsmanship dropped by over 40%. The normal understudy saw more than 2 hours of their week move from these subjects to perusing and arithmetic. When we make a thin educational program for our understudies, we diminish their odds for progress. A few understudies are characteristic peruses. Others are normal craftsmen. Our school regions ought to oblige the two sorts of learning.
As indicated by The Washington Post, in excess of twelve distinctive school regions all through the nation have been found endeavoring to undermine test scores. Outrages that have included a few instructors and overseers, outstandingly in Atlanta, GA, have discolored the learning procedure for understudies. It has even made great educators leave their calling since they need to show a subject as opposed to showing a test.
In conclusion, colleges, for example, Christopher Newport University give the alternative to the understudies who buckled down in secondary school to not present a Standardized test. It likewise allows different understudies who did not have any significant bearing their examination abilities to procure decent evaluation, yet realize they are equipped for acquiring an OK institutionalized score to strengthen their application. For the understudies who do meet the necessities, they can get a good deal on SAT prep books which are evaluated for about $40 and enlistment for the real test which is $50 per test in addition to $26 for each other subject test. The main cash spent by the understudies who meet the necessities are the expense of the applications for each school. By witnessing how much people stress about standardized test even if they had obtained a (Grade Point Average) GPA of 3.0 or higher, I believe universities and colleges should base their admission by the GPA of a student, not the score of a standardized test.