Following the miscalculation of several thousand SAT scores last October, and the subsequent rescinding of 1,600 tests for re-examination two weeks ago, the credibility of the College Board and the test itself have come under serious scrutiny.
In all, 6,200 tests nationwide are thought to have been affected, meaning college admissions offices that are reviewing admissions packets now, at the peak of admission season, are being forced to re-evaluate their newly selected 2006 freshman class.
“[The College Board] did call us, because we are such a big receiver of scores,” said Cheryl Brown, director of undergraduate admissions.
A significant 292 of those scores belong to prospective Binghamton University students — 278 were students in the first batch of scoring errors, and another 14 students the second time around.
“It turned out that there were no negative effects, and students whose scores were changed were issued only increases,” said Brown. “In the main, they were students whose scores changed 10 to 20 to 30 points.”
Not to mention the one student who saw a 120-point increase in his test score — somewhat of an early Christmas bonus.
According to Brown, these students were already admitted, even on the basis of their lower, incorrect test scores, and no acceptance decision was impacted due to the mix up.
While Binghamton’s admissions program insists the scoring debacle has had a nominal effect on its own admissions for the upcoming semester, other universities are less inclined toward forgiveness, pegging the College Board as defunct.
“This really does shake our confidence in the whole system,” said Jason C. Locke, associate provost for undergraduate admissions at Cornell University, in an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education. “My guess is if there isn’t more information forthcoming, the counseling community and the admissions community are going to demand to learn more about this whole process.”
This most recent faux pas comes as no surprise to anti-assessment advocates who have been debunking standardized testing as arcane and inherently unreliable for years.
As one of the largest standardized-test watchdog groups in the nation, The National Center for Fair & Open Testing, more commonly known as FairTest, is working to put an end to what it describes as “the overall testing mania, the flaws and errors that have damaged students and schools across the nation, and the lack of standards and accountability.”
Other pundits waging war against the College Board cite what they consider a general disregard for the well-being of the students at the mercy of the admissions process.
“Having waited until a minute before midnight to reveal this problem, which they knew about last year, is grossly negligent and punitive to those affected October test takers,” said Dave Barry, the director of counseling for CollegeConfidential.com, an online database which offers advice and assistance to prospective undergrads. “All the angst, denied aspirations [and] miscalculated admission decisions … could have been avoided had [the College Board] simply come forward months ago with an honest ‘We goofed! Let’s fix this.’ The reality now, unfortunately is, ‘We goofed. You lose!’”
The scoring debacle raises the question of whether standardized testing is necessary at all, and whether “the great equalizer” of the SAT and its grown-up cousins, the GRE, GMAT and the like, are too flawed to act as admissions stadards.
FairTest argues that the way standardized tests are written — as well as the focus placed on them in the college admissions process — only devalues the individual accomplishments of students, and that trying to quantify scholastic potential is not only futile but “damaging to the quality of education.”
Many students can attest to the seemingly test-driven classes they suffered through in high school, which leads activists to question what students are even working for anymore, and what, if any, is an appropriate means of standardized testing.
According to Kathryn Lansford, BU’s assistant director of undergraduate admissions, BU takes a “holistic approach” to admission review, which translates to the test’s being down “third or fourth” on a criteria list that places more weight on a student’s individual curriculum and overall transcript.
While the viability of the SAT and the credibility of its architect is likely to be questionable for some time to come, the overreaching importance of the test, and its counterparts, don’t seem to be relenting anytime soon.
“We’re still going to look at it the same,” Brown said on the SAT’s future at Binghamton.
Citing discrepancies in institution curricula, GPA and grade inflation across high schools, Brown described the SAT as “one of our only equalizers.”
And it’s exactly that equalization that assessment naysayers like FairTest suggest is at the root of the problem.