Should the SAT and ACT exams be scrapped?

[sneepity]

There's been a lot of controversy recently with Collegeboard and their SAT and ACT exam, which have been in use for a long time to test "student preparedness" and knowledge as a primary factor for college admittance. Averse opinions on whether they should still be in use are popping up, with a variety of different reasons as to why they are actually not efficient at their job. I decided to ask here since I know that many people here have taken the SAT/ACT tests! What is your opinion? Do you support changing up these tests (which have a huge impact on students' education after high school), or should they be kept as is? Do you think it will be too hard to shift to a different exam (which is eventual if you were to see into what education might look like in the coming future)?

[jimmy-bond]

I don't see why SATs and ACTs play nearly as large of a role as they do currently. This is still accounting for the misconception that standardized test scores are everything (once you reach a certain threshold, typically 1450-1500 for SAT or 30 for ACT), then the extra points don't mean much, but falling below that does not break a college application. That's a talk for another day, though.
SATs and ACTs are advertised as tests of college readiness. However, I believe the coursework of a student should indicate this well enough so that the tests are not necessary. Rigorous classes while maintaining solid grades would definitely demonstrate some degree of being able to do well in college, and sound standardized test scores would only reinforce this, not necessarily provide a better testament of their abilities.
But, let's think about the situations where the two factors don't match. When the test scores are high but grades are low, I wouldn't recognize the tests as the better measure; generally, doing poorly in school would reflect the amount of effort that that student is willing to put forth in a college setting rather than an SAT or ACT score. This may also hint at cheating, but I doubt those incidents are as prevalent as they're thought to be.
And, when test scores are low but grades are high, I'd once again go with grades. Many factors can contribute to a student's performance on a standardized test: a sick or chaotic day, getting a batch of questions they are particularly weak on, or even forgetting to skip a space for a skipped question when filling out the answer sheet. Grades have much less potential for an outlier environment on a given day to drastically affect the outcome, since classes are normally a semester or two in length and have many more assignments than the number of sections on standardized tests.
For students without access to rigorous classes that would represent their academic abilities, sure, SAT and ACT tests are extremely beneficial to making a case to admissions officers. Or, a 1600/36 profile could highlight a student who got quite a few B's, which could be fatal in an application in some cases where competition is cutthroat. In instances like this, these tests do a lot of good, but I don't think they should be mandatory. I'd be happy to see a wave of test-optional leniency by colleges.
TL;DR Tests are small brain. The transcript should be good enough.
I love standardized tests as much as the next person, but their detriments (cost, time, importance-based stress) seem to outweigh their potential benefits.

[sneepity]

The biggest thing that SAT/ACT simps say is that without it, the whole process would become entirely subjective and standarized tests are a way to compare all students on the same playing field. The problem with this, though, is that standardized tests aren't so standardized. Kids from more affluent or wealthy backgrounds can afford to take prep courses (that sometimes cost thousands of dollars) where they learn nothing but ways to game the system or little tips and tricks to do well on the test. That doesn't sound like measuring someone's academic skill to me. Furthermore, those without reliable technology or the resources to take such courses are disadvantaged, and the weight placed on SAT scores would make an otherwise bright student look bad.

Second, why shouldn't college applications be subjective? I believe that everyone deserves the chance at a good college education, but nobody deserves to go to an ivy league or t20 school. If you get in, that's a great privilege (doesn't seem worth it to me though) but nobody really deserves it. What makes a person with better grades and a high SAT score a better candidate for a certain college than someone who doesn't have stats that good? The argument that people with better grades are more fit to succeed in college is also complete bs. Plenty of people got good grades in high school because they cheated, or they were under constant pressure and guidance by their parents or peers. When those things are removed from them, they crumble. Other high achieving students end up facing extreme mental health challenges upon going to an elite school. There's a reason they say that an MIT education is like drinking from a firehose. Maybe that's good for some students, but others would not be able to handle it at all. A good school isn't the one that is ranked highly by US News and World Report (which is a dumpster fire btw). Good schools are different for each person and you need to choose the school that's the best fit for you. And that choice has very little to do with a standardized test score. For a college admissions officer, the standardized test score shouldn't mean that much either.

[sneepity]

I agree with Cookiepie1, though they may seem like they offer a fair playing ground, they essentially water down a student's creativity, potential, and other qualities to a standardized SAT that tests on the same, monotonous concepts everyone learns (promoting a set "guideline" people recommend students follow to get into "good" school, like taking an EC of everything and taking lots of AP classes). It does a good job of detecting which students are proactive and prepare well, but does it actually measure a student's worth in other areas? And with some colleges placing so much emphasis on them, they seem so unfair, even when you throw out any disadvantages that someone may have before they even take the test. Basically, I think they shouldn't even be considered when applying for college, but instead, people should be analyzed based on what they've accomplished in their interests/hobbies and school grades, etc which are unique to an individual.

[Unome]

Standardized tests offer a benefit over coursework - mainly, that they're more fair (not perfectly so, obviously, but much more than the massive disparities that go into coursework). Grades and coursework vary so much by school, and while socioeconomic situation does influence standardized test scores, it clearly influences availability of coursework much more.

[sneepity]

I will say some teachers in high schools in my area are notorious for artificially bringing kids' grades down when the class average is too high.
Some teachers are just... not amazing people. I really don't think they should have that much power over the tangible evidence of your academic ability.
Some schools have very severe grade inflation, especially certain private schools.
Once you pass a certain point, GPA is a better indicator of how good your teachers were and what course options were available to you.

SAT and ACT are definitely socioeconomically unfair. I don't think the premise of standardized testing is inherently flawed, but its current execution is awful. CollegeBoard writes its questions ambiguously; often, you can get questions wrong despite knowing the answer just from not being familiar with the test-writing style. For non-math questions, often there are two "correct" answers, but the test writer thought one was "more correct."
Wealthier students will always be able to afford tutoring and thus have an advantage (at least in the forseeable future). However, there is a difference between tutoring for the knowledge tested and tutoring for the test itself. The application process will have to take the former into consideration; poorer students simply do not have access to as many resources. However, I think a reworked standardized test can make the latter far less useful; this way, a student self-studying the content of the test without tutoring specifically for SAT strategies can do just as well.

"Second, why shouldn't college applications be subjective?"
To reduce bias and/or discrimination. The way our system is set up, ideally the people admitted are the people who can get the most of that education, create the best community, and change it for the better the most. I think there are flaws with the system, but as long as the system of college applications is a competitive process with an impact on future opportunities/privileges, I think an effort should be made to base the decision on merit. Additionally, some people are far better at making themselves sound better on paper than others. I think about Dragon Army in Ender's Game a lot; the person who picked the army purposely sought out capable children who were bad at getting themselves promoted (e.g., not good at boasting, passing on the credit but taking on the blame). Essays have socioeconomic imbalance as well. Some students can afford essay revision and even having someone else write their essays. Some students are so busy supporting their family they barely have the time to write an essay.

"Good schools are different for each person and you need to choose the school that's the best fit for you."
I agree! But often people are not admitted to the school that fits best for them, even when they are fully qualified and would benefit from the education; the school does not have enough spots. I don't think that's the way the system should be, but that's a framework we have to work within.

"The argument that people with better grades are more fit to succeed in college is also complete bs."
Why so? I completely agree people can get good grades that are not a result of ability or hard work. I also think smart, hardworking people can be screwed over by bad teachers (see my first paragraph).But why is it complete BS? I think it serves as a rough indicator of how much priority someone places on academics, as well as how prepared they are for college. A slightly higher GPA does not mean someone is slightly more likely to get the most out of an education; however, a very low GPA probably means someone is less able to handle difficult college coursework, though there will of course be exceptions. GPA alone would be an awful basis for admissions, but I think that it's still an important aspect to consider.
I'm going to assume you included higher SAT score with better grades; correct me if that is not the case. GPA can serve as a rough indicator, but it's plagued with its own issues as well. Standardized testing also has its issues, but having two measures of academic strength helps reduce the odds that someone's academic ability is mischaracterized.

Long story short: I'm fine with SAT and ACT being scrapped, but I'd prefer they were completely reworked instead. I also wouldn't mind a different, more equitable standardized test taking their place. Socioeconomic status impacts every aspect of what a high schooler has to show on a resume, not just standardized testing. I think a better course of action is trying to mitigate its effects on those aspects, rather than scraping those aspects because they contain any level of inequality. I also think it's important to take privilege into account, rather than trying to make students of equal potential get the same score. Someone with access to more resources will know more than someone who could do better than them, but does not have access to those resources. Trying to make the two get the same score makes the test a poor indicator of ability at all; the focus should be increasing resource access while taking inequality into account when looking at those scores.

[knightmoves]

There's a reason they say that an MIT education is like drinking from a firehose. Maybe that's good for some students, but others would not be able to handle it at all. A good school isn't the one that is ranked highly by US News and World Report (which is a dumpster fire btw). Good schools are different for each person and you need to choose the school that's the best fit for you. And that choice has very little to do with a standardized test score. For a college admissions officer, the standardized test score shouldn't mean that much either.

Sure. And if you're an admissions officer or whatever at one of those firehose schools, you want to select the students who can suck it up. The question is whether SAT / ACT help you do that. Not whether they're perfect, but whether by using the SAT and/or ACT, you have a better chance of selecting students who will do well at your school. (If you select people that drop out, nobody benefits - not the kid who flunked, not the school, and not the kid who didn't get the chance of a place because their spot was taken by the flunker.)

MIT accepts less than 8% of applicants. Admissions people have a lot of applicants to sort through - they need some kind of filter that's relatively efficient. You're right that there's a socioeconomic bias in standard tests. There's also a socioeconomic bias in the availability of honours and AP classes in your high school, in the availability of attractive-looking extracurriculars, and so on. And as for GPA from your high school, that doesn't mean much at all.

An interesting question is this: Of the 92% of candidates that MIT rejected, how many would have thrived at MIT. Selecting "the best" N candidates is very difficult. It's easy enough to spot brilliant "best student in ten years" type people, but the applicants near the bottom of the admissions list are probably basically identical to the ones near the top of the reject list. If, for example, 50% of people who applied to MIT would thrive there, does it actually matter which 16% of those are the ones that are admitted? (I mean, it matters to the individual students, I'm sure, but that's not really the point.)

[vehicleguy]

I don't have as much of a problem with SATs and ACTs as I do AP tests.

I personally find AP exams to be completely and utterly useless when deciding if a kid is admitted into college. First of all, unlike the SATs and ACTs, you can only take AP tests once. There is no room for error in the test and there is no use in growing in that subject after the exam. At least SATs and ACTs (which I have mixed feelings about btw), generally motivate students to continue studying and preparing for them.

My biggest complaint with AP tests is how much performance will vary from school to school. For example, school A has an excellent AP chemistry teacher who knows the test inside and out. Not only does he/she center the entire curriculum around the test and help the kids review two weeks before the exam, but they are also a caring person who is willing to help any student in need. On the other hand, AP chemistry is taught in school B by that one teacher we all know so incredibly well; the one that literally doesn't teach and will not help you whatsoever.

Obviously, a student from school A and school B can get the exact same grade on the AP chemistry test, but most likely, students from school B will have to study much harder. When student B is working hard for that AP exam, student A can be doing other things to help their college resume, such as volunteering or playing sports. This effect really snowballs when a student has multiple AP classes taught by awful teachers.

AP exams are just fundamentally flawed. SATs and ACTs have problems with people in different socio economic groups, but at least the test can be reworked to account for it. AP test success is heavily influenced by a teacher, and it is pretty much unpredictable whether that teacher will be helpful or unhelpful. The best high school in the country can have an awful AP teacher, while a lower ranked school can have a really good one. There is absolutely no way to fix this, and in my opinion, it's the reason AP tests are so unfair.

Sorry for the bad grammar and style, I was writing quickly.

[Jehosaphat]

TBH all the tests are going to be imperfect, but standardized tests really help someone like me. I play 3 sports, participate in countless extracurriculars, and just have generally run out of time to do stuff, so I can only take 2 APs in my school that already has a poor selection of, so taking a standardized test that takes up relatively little of my time is hugely beneficial