It’s not difficult to curse standardized testing for the enormous inconvenience and stress it brings students, teachers, and parents. Hours drained in that repetitive practice. But the debate around standardized testing stems from more than just concern for time or energy. The most persuasive argument for reform questions the ability of standardized testing to provide an accurate representation of a student’s merit.

My mind entertains a picture of the college admissions process where a group of men convene in some musky conference room, making remarks on the intelligence of faceless students. On the criterion sheet, the students’ individual standardized test scores are typed in bold, then circled in neon highlighter. And of course, if the number is even a single point short from the range, no considerations will take place at all— the application gets carefully disposed of, with as much righteousness as can be mustered. 

This number, which is designated more weight than most other standards of admission, is produced from the results of a single, three-hour test, grounded largely in memorization skills. Students are tested less on their critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and more on formulaic knowledge often acquired by rote. It’s almost depressing (here I am, about to sound like an old grumpy professor), that learning has morphed into this mechanical process wherein teachers teach in preparation of the test, and students retain the knowledge just long enough so that it can be regurgitated onto a blue, bubbled answer sheet. 

Beyond that, we must also consider circumstantial factors that may render the test inaccurate. Suppose the score was an anomaly? An outlier? Perhaps the student felt rather unwell that day, and subsequently produced a less-than-desired performance. And what about intelligent students who are simply poor test takers––students who glaze over in the stifling testing room and drench their collars with sweat. 

We cannot ignore the factor of privilege either. Wealth allows some students access to tutors and programs that will significantly impact standardized testing scores. Their higher scores, however, do no necessarily indicate that they are in any way more capable than less fortunate students. 

So, truly, why are our SAT and ACT scores spearheading our college applications? The common counter-argument offered is that it allows for a universal, objective measurement of academic merit. But we have seen that this may not always be true. 

Unfortunately, although I complain, and push for their abolishment, I must admit that I cannot offer a better alternative. The college admissions process remains an unsolved problem, desperate for reform.