Comments on: Do colleges put too much stock in standardized test scores?

By: Shanice

Shanice — Mon, 10 May 2010 15:22:19 +0000

I believe that colleges definitely put too much stock in standardized test scores because of the simple fact that two days of testing does not determine how well of a student you will be at any instituition and doesn't determine your potential… you could of have a bad day while taking the test or you could of had a death in the family, of headache… or maybe every one is not a good test taker now give me a break!!!!!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:37:45 +0000

…If a student cannot score well on the SAT or ACT, but can score well on tests administered as part of their curriculum, then perhaps it is reflective a poor curriculum. Or maybe the student just isn't as "good" as a student as s/he seems to be.

I mean, how one expect to ace an organic chemistry final in college if the SAT is too much? Give me a break.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 06:37:31 +0000

No, colleges do not put too much stock into standardized testing. In the example given above (i.e., Student A vs. Student B), a really good student is going to have a higher GPA than either student, regardless of the teacher. Great students come from many different schools. If you attend a very difficult school (e.g., a "governor's school" or magnet school), then the SAT is your time to shine amongst a set of peers from across the country, not just the other smart students at your school. If you come from a terrible school, then the SAT is a way for you to show your capabilities despite your educational situaiton.

As far as my case, I went to an above average public high school, finished first in my class, scored very highly on the SAT (95th percentile), went to college and continued to excel, and now I am will be starting medical school in the fall. I just don't understand how a "good" student for 4 years of high school cannot handle a relatively easy test….

By: Liberaltarian91

Liberaltarian91 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:47:51 +0000

Standardized testing is a much fairer grading standard than GPA. When it comes to GPA, the same course could have two completely teachers. Student A could get a 3.8 GPA because she had an easy teacher who gave a significant amount of extra credit, while Student B, who could be much smarter than Student A, could get a 2.5 GPA because she had a teacher who gives out twice the amount of work and grades harshly.

To do well on a standardized test, a good knowledge of basic math, basic reading comprehension, and basic grammar mechanics are necessary, which all students who aspire to go to college should have.

Maybe the SAT does not test things like social skills or astuteness, but there is already a test for things like that: life.

By: Jrock

Jrock — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:03:00 +0000

I don’t believe so. There has to be a system that filters out the applicants. Getting an A in one school might just as well be an F in another school. All schools teach differently and this is the only way the schools can filter through them all, with a standardized test to see where you rank.

By: Weer'd Beard

Weer'd Beard — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:46:25 +0000

Standardization is the only way for colleges to effectively judge student aptitude, as grading procedures, and curriculum can vary so greatly from one school/state to another.

Without standardized tests, this variation would only become greater.

Unfortunately no standard will be ideal for all (I was one of them, I struggled on the SATs and ended up taking them twice just to boost my score) but the good far outweighs the bad.

Also the tests are constantly being studied and adjusted for improvement.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:38:08 +0000

Definitely. I do think that it is a good way for colleges to tell the intellect of the student, but they use it too heavily.