• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Arguments Against the Use of the SAT and ACT to Make Placement Decisions

Several prominent organizations connected to composition are largely against the use of the ACT and SAT for placement purposes (or much else). Statements concerning their positions can be found here:

• The Network for Media Action @ Digital WPA Coordinated media campaign
• The National Council of Teachers of English position statement on “The Impact of the SAT and ACT Timed Writing Tests.”

In addition, The National Center for Fair and Open Testing has many resources connected with similar positions.

For a quick and dirty version of common arguments against their use however, keep reading.

• The SAT and ACT were not designed for use in course placement.

By glancing through the provided material on the COMPASS and ACCUPLACER, clear differences in the way the two types are administered, their structure, and the options provided can be seen.

• The Tests promote problematic understandings of what good writing is.

The NCTE position statement points out that sample essays provided on the College Board site “provide models of essays that define “good” writing as essentially “correct” writing that is focused on conventional truisms and platitudes about life.” Further, audience and purpose aren’t stressed, and scores emphasize “‘observable’ and ‘measurable’ traits, which constitute only a small part of what makes a piece of writing effective.” (“Impact” 7)

• The tests do not provide students with an “authentic” writing situation. There is no time for revision, editing, etc. and hence the student’s real abilities are not tested.

While tests like the ACT and SAT specify that they are can measure student performance accurately based on rough draft material, how much knowledge of a student’s true abilities can be gained from such a sample? Studies back up these concerns. For more information, see the NCTE position statement linked above, pages 3 and 4.

• Traditional studies that only look at correlations between scores and various grades do not take all relevant factors into account, and hence provide inaccurate information.

They overlook all of the other possible influences, such as socioeconomic status and parent’s education level. In fact, according to Richard Atkinson and Saul Geiser, both of these factors have been shown to correlate much more closely to SAT scores than high school grades do. (665). According to “Princeton economist Jesse Rothstein (2004) conservatively estimates that traditional validity studies that omit socioeconomic variables overstate the predictive power of the SAT by 150%” (666). Atkinson is president emeritus of the University of Califiornia, and his 2001 announcement encouraging UC to drop the SAT altogether partially influenced the College Board to create the revised SAT-I (Pelfrey). Geiser is a research associate for the Center of Studies in Higher Education who specializes in research concerning admissions testing and criteria and their impact on less advantaged populations. Geiser was also director of admissions research for the University of California (“Richard” and “Saul”).

• The cost of the new SAT and optional ACT writing assessment create added hardship for students with limited socioeconomic means.

While fee waivers are available, the NCTE states that they “find it hard to believe that all such students will be identified and assisted” (“Impact” 11). Concerns about the impact of expensive test preparation programs are also raised.

• High school grades are the most reliable indicator of success in college courses.

Although there is obvious variation in grading across the nation, Atkinson and Geiser state that “Irrespective of the quality or type of school attended, cumulative grade point average (GPA) . . . has proved to be the best overall predictor of student performance in college. This finding has been confirmed in the great majority of “predictive-validity” studies conducted over the years, including studies conducted by the testing agencies themselves” (665). For further details, Burton and Ramist are suggested.

• Curriculum-based tests are more valid indicators of success.

When the University of California reviewed their admissions policies in the late nineties, they found that SAT II subject tests were slightly better predictors than the much more widely administered (and discussed here) SAT I. AP exams were shown to be even better predictors (Atkinson and Geiser 667). See Geiser, as well as Geiser and Santelices for further details.

• Again, definitions are key to this debate.

The NCTE position statement comments that, “The very constructs of validity and reliability continue to be debated by experts in the field of assessment. . . . Therefore, even if the SAT timed writing test can meet common standards for validity and reliability, questions about those measures continue to be raised with respect to writing ability” (“Impact” 4). See Huot, as well as Moss for further information on this debate.

Bibliography

Atkinson, Richard C. and Saul Geiser. “Reflections on a Century of College Admission Tests.” Education Researcher 38.9 (Dec. 2009): 665-676. Print.

Burton, Nancy W. and Leonard Ramist. “Predicting Success in College: SAT Studies of Classes Graduating Since 1980.” College Board Research Rep. No. 2001-2. College Board. 2001. PDF. 9 May 2011.

Geiser, Saul and Maria Veronica Santelices. “Validity of High-School Grades in Predicting Student Success Beyond the Freshman Year: High-School Record vs. Standardized Tests as Indicators for Four-Year College Outcomes.” Center for Studies in Higher Education. 2007. Web. 9 May 2011.

[[Geiser, Saul and Roger Studley. “UC and the SAT: Predictive Validity and Differential Impact of the SAT I and SAT II at the University of California.” University of California Office of the President. 29 Oct. 2001. PDF. 9 May 2011.→http://www.ucop.edu/sas/research/researchandplanning/pdf/sat_study.pdf]]

Huot, Brian. “Reliability, Validity, and Holistic Scoring: What We Know and What We Need to Know. College Composition and Communication 41.2 (1990): 201-232. Web. 9 May 2011.

“The Impact of the SAT and ACT Timed Writing Tests.” NCTE. April 2005. PDF. 9 May 2011.

Moss, Pamela A. “Validity and High Stakes Writing Assessment: Problems and Possibilities.” Assessing Writing. 1 (1994): 109-128. Web. 9 May 2011.

Pelfrey, Patricia A. “A Brief History of the Atkinson Presidency (1995 - 2003).” Office of the President. 26 April 2003. Web. 20 April 2011.

“Saul Geiser.” Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC Regents. 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 20 April 2011.