Giving The SAT A Low Score, Ctd
A reader writes:
I’m currently training to tutor kids on the SAT and ACT, so I have some special insight on Elizabeth Kolbert’s piece. She is right: SAT tests are pretty superficial. But they’re not trying to test you on the questions, since all of the math and verbal concepts are relatively easy to understand and memorize. They’re testing you on your cognitive skills: how well and how quickly do you process information? Do stressful and tiring situations trip you up? Yet the SAT isn’t even good at testing those skills. The questions are all too straightforward.
But we have a similar test that doesn’t fall into that trap: the GMAT. Questions are not always straightforward. Red herrings are everywhere. The notorious data sufficiency questions stretch test-takers’ brains in unique ways. You are being tested on your problem-solving abilities, your time management, and your ability to actually make a damn decision. Even the writing section is more relevant than the SAT’s version. You have to engage and dissect an argument and show how it is flawed. The GMAT is the best, most fun test I have ever taken.
But another reader is really skeptical of standardized testing:
The colleges to which I applied when I was in high school didn’t require the SAT; the ACT has in many locales replaced the SAT. But the same premise is there – you pay for tutoring classes, review classes, prep courses, and all in the hopes of getting into a better school. I nearly burned myself out my junior year stressing over a test that really had no way of indicating whether or not I was going to have success in college.
A couple of years after I graduated college, I started looking into grad schools, knowing I wanted to study English literature. The schools to which I wanted to apply mostly required not only the GRE, but also a subject-specific GRE in literature. I plugged away with studying again, trying to prepare myself for what by all accounts is an intensely rigorous exam.
I needn’t have worried. The exam was thoroughly awful. The majority of the exam tested not an ability to understand and analyze literature but the ability to recall specific details from a smattering of books, as well as which authors had written which titles. In other words, the test did not so much feel qualitative as quantitative – which might work for some sciences but is antithetical to work in the arts.
As you can guess, I did pretty poorly on the GRE literature exam. I began exploring my alternatives for grad school, as I simply did not want to put myself through that horrible examination again. I ended up finding, applying to, and ultimately attending, a small school in Wales. This school did not need examination results; rather, they wanted me to submit a proposal for my area of study, as well as proof that I could do the rigorous research graduate work requires.
My point is: I got an excellent education from an institution that didn’t expect me to take some silly standardized exam. If that could happen for me and my classmates, it could happen for everyone. Why, then, do American institutions put so much emphasis on standardized exams and scores? Well, it seems pretty obvious to me. As Kolbert explains, higher standardized test scores lead to better rankings. She doesn’t come right out and say it, but the truth is that these higher rankings inexorably lead to more money, through donations, increased applications (which usually include fees ranging from $50 to $200 per application), government grants, and so forth. To me, that’s deplorable. But then, the “nonprofit” education system in America really is a misnomer, isn’t it?
Another offers a heads-up that changes are in store for the SAT:
In a couple of days, College Board president David Coleman is going to announce changes to the SAT that will enrich the content of the test. This is part of the new president’s overall goal of rededicating the College Board to its mission of delivering opportunity. Information is below for any Dishheads who would like to follow!



Andrew Sullivan's Blog
- Andrew Sullivan's profile
- 153 followers
