Don't Test Me

A predictable, and predictably bad, editorial in the LA Times. To no one's surprise, Joanne V. Creighton, President of Mount Holyoke college, doesn't like the SATs.

She states (she doesn't even rhetorically ask) "It seems self-evident that a one-size-fits-all test could not adequately assess the diverse populations of students and schools that make up the U.S. educational landscape." True, since nothing could adequately assess all students properly. But, in fact, it's because of our diverse population that something like the SAT is so useful--it's the only common measurement we have.

Creighton is bothered that certain groups, such as Asian students, predominate on prestigious campuses. (Poor fools--they worked too hard, they must be punished.) She prefers touch-feely "holistic" standards that allow her to get results that please her social-engineering heart.

Mount Holyoke has made the use of SATs optional for admission. Fine. Small, prestigious liberal arts schools can easily get away with that, no damage done. However, Ms. Creighton believes this essentially meaningless experiment proves the SATs shouldn't matter, because research has shown those admitted without SAT scores do just about as well.

This is the kind of thing that gives research a bad name. It's not hard to pick good Holyoke students from "non-submitters," since the school itself is both selective and self-selective. It's as if the research is designed not to upset the theory it's supposed to prove. If you want serious research into the SATs, what you do (and it's not that hard) is compare students with vastly different SATs within the same institution taking essentially the same classes.

Today's educators will bend heaven and earth to get their preferred results. If the SAT gave them what they want, they'd laud it to the skies. Because it doesn't, they must destroy it.