It's interesting in a slightly twisted sort of way but in the end I don't really care at all. The College Board goes into damage control mode - Washington DC College admissions | Examiner.com
The 'College Board' is--and has always been--a front for the for-profit Educational Testing Service. (Yes, it is, technically, not-for-profit, but it didn't used to be, and it still spends like a drunk sailor on a weekend pass--possibly violating its tax status. But that's for others to decide.) Approximately 9 of 10 colleges in the U.S. are non-competitive; they admit all applicants who meet the admission requirements. The SAT is designed to do one thing: predict a student's success in his/her freshman year. The SAT is a poor predictor. Other factors that correlate much more strongly include high school GPA and family wealth. The SAT represents what economists call an 'externality': one entity gains the benefit while another pays the price. Global warming is an example of this. In this case, the students (and/or their families) pay, but it is the colleges that get the benefit. The colleges get free information used to make admissions decisions. If the colleges--instead of students and families--were required to pay for this poor admissions information, the SAT would disappear overnight.
Thanks. For those who've not visited it (practically everyone, I assume), it is totally non-commercial. You can download several documents without even having to log in--I collect zero information. Those documents include both my Union dissertation and my Leicester doctoral thesis.
There are now over 850 schools that no longer require test scores for admissions. This article discusses the trend. It's a few years old and the list has grown since it was published: Colleges that don’t require SAT or ACT: New survey - The Washington Post I say good riddance to standardized test scores. I've always had a bit of a problem with the idea that my academic accomplishments can be reduced to one single score. And the scores can definitely be increased, often substantially, by using a good test prep service. Poor students who can't afford those services have to miss out on the better schools, I suppose.
Well, no one is reduced to a test score. The schools that use the SAT (or its sister, the ACT) do so in conjunction with other factors. When done so, the SAT adds a bit more predictability to the process. A bit. But.... The last part of your post is one of three key points. (The first being that the costs aren't borne by the one's receiving the benefit of testing. The second being that the SAT adds very little to the predictability of the admissions process.) Students who have access to test coaching are in a much better position to do better on the exam than those who do not. Equally capable students who have less access to test preparation are at a real disadvantage. The ETS tried to deny this for decades, but no one takes them seriously anymore. (Especially since the ETS sells test prep materials.) Family wealth is a strong predictor of performance on the SAT. Money talks.
