Why Not Boycott the SAT?
A few weeks back, I left a comment on the Students20h blog in response to an a post written describing a student's thoughts on the college admissions process. The gist of my comment was that college is but a part of actual learning, and that where you go to college offers as many opportunities about where and how you want to live as it provides opportunities on where, how, and what you want to learn. In my comment, I dropped an aside about how I'd love to see an entire class of students -- nationwide -- boycott the SATs and the APs. Without the SATs and the APs, my reasoning (if you can call it that :) ) went, colleges would need to find a different method to evaluate applicants, because the overwhelming majority of colleges would be dead in the water without new tuition revenue.
I've had this idea for a while -- probably for over a decade -- and it always rattled around as something that is easy to say because it is easily dismissable. Clay Burell mentioned it in a blog post, and it landed with a faintly audible thud. This doesn't surprise me, because finding a better tool than the SAT and AP classes is a goal that many people would like to see achieved (a de-emphasis on testing) but that most people believe will never happen, at least without top-down change. Also, as I see it, we are looking at a testing beast with at least three heads: The PSAT, the SAT, and the AP. All of these heads attach to the College Board.
We'll be waiting a long time for top-down change to occur on this one, as there is no incentive for anybody to change anything. The College Board brings in good money via testing fees, and I'll do some napkin math on this in the next couple paragraphs. Colleges are comfortable using SAT and AP numbers in their admissions process for a variety of reasons, and change is both expensive and inconvenient. The US Federal Budget included a request for an additional $90 million dollars (on top of $32 million in 2006) for fiscal year 2007 and 2008 to expand the AP program. As you can see from the enacted budgets (an excel download of the 2007 budget is here, and the AP is line 195; an Excel download for 2008 is here, with the AP on line 212) the increases were more modest (an increase of $5 million in 2007, and of $6.5 million in 2008, to a total of $43.5 million), but the implication of the repeated $90 million increased spending request is clear: a standardized test -- in this case, the AP -- will provide evidence of student learning. In turn, this increased emphasis on AP courses is a nice windfall for those in the business of selling curriculum, as this federal money guarantees that school districts will have the need to buy AP curriculum and train teachers in its use.
Which brings us to some napkin math on testing fees: According to the College Board, an estimated 2.7 million students graduated high school in 2006. I wasn't able to get good numbers on the number of students who take the SAT more than once in the hopes of increasing their score, and therefore pay multiple testing fees, so for the sake of this rough estimate we will assume that 2.5 million students took the SAT. According to the College Board SAT FAQ page, the cost to take the SAT is $43.00. So, 2.5 million students taking the SAT would gross $107.5 million.
For the PSAT, I was not able to find good numbers on total number of students talking the test. However, the relationship between the PSAT and the National Merit Scholarship awards is clearly identified on the College Board web site, and this seems to be one of the prime motivating factors to take the test. So, in the interest of estimating low, let's assume that half of the 2.7 million graduating students took the PSAT at least once -- and it's worth noting that some students take the PSAT multiple times, some starting in the eighth grade. But, to generate a low (and therefore reliably uninflated) number, let's assume that 1.35 million students pay 13.00 to take the test. This would gross $17,550,000.00
Moving on to the AP, according to this article in the Austin Daily Texan, "(a)bout 610,000 of the roughly 2.7 million members of the class of 2005 took a total of 1.5 million AP tests." Each AP test costs 84.00 to take (according to the College Board, much of the expense is caused by the increased cost of scoring the AP relative to the SAT), so 1.5 million tests at 84.00 apiece grosses $126 million.
So, a low-end estimate of the gross from the tests is $107.5 million for the SAT, $17.55 million for the PSAT, and $126 million for the AP, for approximately $245.55 million dollars for one year. And these testing fees are completely independent of the different trainings offered for teachers, all with registration fees. And the numbers I generated above also do not take into account any revenue generated from selling test prep info to students directly.
Of course, other people besides the College Board are willing to teach you how to take that test. According to a Business Week article from February, 2005, test prep companies brought in "an estimated $702 million in 2003, and that's expected to grow to $960 million" in 2004. I wasn't able to find current estimates for 2005 through 2007, but I'd love to see them if anyone has them -- please leave them in the comments.
So here is my unrealistic dream. It will never happen, but it is incredibly fun to imagine.
Imagine an empty room on the Saturday allotted for the SATs. Imagine parents not spending over a thousand dollars on a SAT prep course. Imagine students outside, playing sports, doing theater, hanging out, doing just about anything rather than wasting time on SAT review questions. Imagine what could be done if the money earmarked for testing, curriculum to support testing, infrastructure to deliver tests, etc, could be spent differently.
When I was still teaching, I would run this idea past a class occasionally. Not surprisingly, the students generally got a kick out of it. It wasn't what they expected a teacher to say, for one thing. And most of the students came back to this place, more or less: "It would only work if everybody did it, and we couldn't trust everybody to do it." That, and "Our parents would kill us." I always expected a parent phone call after dropping this idea out there, but I never got one. The thing that was fun about these conversations, though, was that usually, a few days after the conversation, a kid would come into my office wanting to talk about it, and excited about the possibility that something like this just might work.
I know it will never happen. But just think about the possibilities if it could.
I appreciate that you
I appreciate that you understand this will never happen. The SAT is not a perfect, or even a great indicator of success in college. What it is though, is a data point. Data points are valuable in making admissions decisions. Most studies which show that high-school GPA on its own would be a better indicator of college success than high-school GPA and SAT scores together are highly flawed and even more disturbingly, all of these researchers ignore the ACT. My guess is that when they rand the data with ACT scores, it was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the ACT around so they only have the SAT to knock. All this says is that we need to switch from the SAT to the ACT and nothing else.
I'm not sure you're arguing against standardized testing or against the SAT specifically. Also, I think you don't understand the dynamic between ETS and The College Board. While ETS is no the public face of the SAT, it is the primary powerhouse and revenue bastion. The College Board is just a small research organization. ETS is the one that makes the big bucks.
Overall, standardized testing for college admissions is logical and useful. Without a baseline, there is no fair way to accurately compare students across the country. One might argue that SAT IIs, APs, and the ACT are better measures and that's a fine and dandy argument. The argument that we should just go by high-school GPAs on the other hand is silly as many major high schools have major grade inflation. We might as well just have a lottery for college admissions if that were the case.
Hello,
Hello,
Thanks for your comments -- I have a couple thoughts/questions included below --
RE:
Absolutely. My concern/criticism is with the cost of creating this data point; in terms of time, money, stress, and, in the case of many students, other things left undone in the pursuit of higher SAT scores. As you say, the SAT is not "a great indicator of success in college" -- yet, students have real stress about this test, and a host of test preparation companies capitalize on that fear and uncertainty. As a result, students spend real time -- and their parents spend real money -- to learn how to take the SAT. I view this as wasted time, as SAT prep is focused on learning how to take the SAT, and this knowledge becomes largely useless once a student is halfway through their senior year. So, we get a data point that is valuable to admissions committees as they make decisions. But that data point comes at a real cost, and, given that the data point is unreliable and serves no real educational purpose, I'd argue that the cost of convenience for admissions is too high, and this cost should not be paid for by the students.
The PSAT seems to serve no real purpose other than to add weight/credibility to the SAT.
Success on the AP actually does seem to have some predictive validity wrt college GPA. However, the pacing of AP curriculum often precludes any deep study of the subjects, as many AP teachers feel the pressure to cover the full subject matter covered on their particular AP, often choosing breadth over depth. While I'm glad that at least one of these tests can be used to predict something, I'd be a little more enthusiastic if the item predicted (in this case, college GPA) could in turn be tied to some other, more meaningful measure of success in life.
RE:
I would love to see some of these studies, in particular any good data that shows how the ACT is a better option. Feel free to send me any links directly, or in another comment.
RE:
Both, but more against the SAT. Standardized tests, used well (ie, as a part of assessment that includes portfolios, student input, teacher input, parent input, etc), can be useful. But high-stakes standardized tests simply encourage cheating, deceit, and manipulation.
RE:
I don't have a deep understanding of the relationship here, true. As I understand it, ETS creates the tests for the College Board, who distributes them and scores them. In short, I'd love to know more -- any pointers to resources, please leave them as a comment or drop me a line personally.
RE:
For the colleges, yes, and within an educational system that holds a college diploma is the main measure of an education. Standardized tests don't work for students, and they don't even attempt to measure informal learning, which is what most of us engage in every day of our lives once we are out of college.
RE:
You won't find me making any of these arguments. They all seem equally silly, even without grade inflation in the mix.
RE:
If a lottery would eliminate the SATs, upper level curriculum driven by the AP, and the test preparation industry, I'd say we should switch to a lottery tomorrow. And the lottery has the added benefit of at least being honest about the element of chance inherent in the current college admissions process.
More importantly, though: the point of education isn't to fuel college admissions. The point of education is to think critically, question, discuss, listen, formulate arguments, make mistakes, analyze why you made the mistakes, create, and repeat as needed in whatever order makes the most sense relative to the task at hand.
Post new comment