Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, February 26, 1995 TAG: 9502240032
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: G3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: REGINALD SHAREEF
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Hoover Institute scholar Thomas Sowell argues these tests are accurate predictors of future college success, especially for black students. Others, like Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, contend these tests are ``a highly accurate method of little more than measuring the ability of students to take standardized tests.''
Who is right? The evidence is mixed.
Sowell's analysis, found in his 1993 book ``Inside American Education,'' concludes that a causal relationship exists between lower black test scores, preferential college admissions and subsequent academic failure. When elite universities admit minority students who do not meet their normal admissions standards, he argues, it causes the second tier of the academic hierarchy to lower its standards for minority students who would otherwise go to institutions in the third or fourth tiers. Thus, preferential admissions (because of lower scores) causes large numbers of minority students to attend schools whose admissions standards they don't meet, instead of attending schools whose normal standards they do.
The result of this systematic mismatching of minority students with the inappropriate academic institution, says Sowell, leads to artificial failure. For instance, he cites the poor graduation record of blacks at the University of California at Berkeley in 1987. In 1983, the average black student's score on the composite SAT was 952, above the composite black national average of 900 but well below the Berkeley average of 1181. More than 70 percent of the black students in this class failed to graduate.
Moreover, Sowell found that fewer black students graduated in 1987 than in 1976 - before preferential admissions programs. He also cites similar outcomes at M.l.T. and the University of Texas.
These were artificial failures, he argues, since these students' qualifications would have been more than adequate for the average American university or college. He asks a compelling question: ``What was accomplished by admitting more black students and graduating fewer?``
Yet, do these exams really predict future academic success as Sowell so ardently believes? Reich, in "The Work of Nations," questions the predictive validity of these tests. He suggests they are a relic of a bygone era when students moved from grade to grade through a preplanned sequence of standard subjects. In this sequence, students learn certain facts, and those with the greatest capacity to absorb facts were put on a fast academic track. Those with the least capacity for fact retention and self-discipline were put on a slow track. Most students ended up in the middle.
Reich argues that standardized tests do not measure aptitude. Apparently, the organization that administers the SAT agrees. Last year, they renamed the Scholastic Aptitude Test the Scholastic Assessment Test.
Other indicators suggest that these tests do not measure aptitude. For example, prep courses guarantee an increase of SAT scores by 100 to 150 points after learning various test-taking strategies and techniques. This buttresses Reich's contention that these tests only measure how well certain students take standardized tests. The best-known of these prep courses is offered through the Stanley Kaplan organization, and costs range from $400 for the SAT to $600 for the Graduate Record Exam. This high cost effectively eliminates many poorer students from learning these score-improving strategies.
Perhaps more telling are the experiences of higher-education administrators deciding whom to admit to their programs. The use of standardized tests at both the undergraduate and graduate programs is pervasive. The application package for students applying to graduate school includes the student's undergraduate transcript, letters of recommendation from former professors and standardized test scores. Traditionally, these test scores were weighted more heavily than the other criteria.
The director of a nationally ranked masters program told me recently that he is considering elimination of the use of standardized tests for admissions. The reason? He had found out about the success of a number of black students, rejected by him because of low test scores, who graduated from comparable programs. This had also happened in his own program: Minority students with low Graduate Record Examination scores had been admitted on probationary status and successfully completed the program.
While both Lawrence and Sowell believe in the predictive power of standardized testing, their differ radically in their beliefs on why minority test scores are lower. Lawrence's comments suggest genetic differences between the races. Sowell's research points to environmental determinants.
For example, he found that Jewish immigrants from Russia and Poland had the lowest mental test scores among European immigrants in the early part of this century. Yet, within a decade, Jewish test scores were above the national average, and have remained so. This occurred during a period of socioeconomic development and acculturation of Jews into American society
It was not, however, a period of large intermarriage of Jews with other groups in the United States. Consequently, these drastic changes in test scores for American Jews were environmental and not genetic. Test scores for other lower-scoring groups, including American blacks, have increased significantly as they mainstream into American society,
Lawrence's comments were unfortunate because of their racial overtones. The results of these comments have been attacks on his integrity and questions about his ability to head an institution of higher learning. Lost in this clamor is a much larger debate on the efficacy and utility of standardized tests. A conclusive answer to this question may do more to undermine racism in higher education than all the protests on the Rutgers campus.
Reginald Shareef is associate professor of political science and public administration at Radford University.
by CNB