Monday, April 16, 2012

Rewarded for Your Genes

As some of you may know, I've decided to write my junior theme on why standardized tests are used in the college admission process- specifically the SAT. The SAT faces a lot of criticism becasue many believe it to be biased towards certain racial and ethnic groups. It's no mystery that there have been consistant scoring gaps between races and ethnic groups, but that's not the only criticism it faces (Zwick). Many now wonder what the SAT actually measures or rather what it should measure.
The SAT originally stood for "Standardized Aptitude Test", but was later changed to "Standardized Assessment Test" until College Board finally dropped the name all together and is now just the "SAT".
This is where the problem lies. The College Board, owner of the SAT, claims that the test "is a relatively good predictor of how students will do in their first year of college" rather than an IQ test of sorts, but if the test was originally designed to measure "aptitude" or innate intelligence, how are we sure it still doesn't just reward good genes today?
Just from personal experience, I know plenty of people who did extraordinarily well on the ACT or SAT, but have a very low GPA considering. These are people I know are exeptionally bright students, but just don't follow through on school work. So does the SAT/ACT reward them for their genetic brilliance? 
I will admit to being a hardworker with average test scores and I'll also admit that standardized tests have always frustrated me for that reason. But innate capabilites are rewarded all the time so why no the SAT too? A prime example of this would be sports. Some people are natural athletes with incredible physical capabilities, and therefore benefit from their athletic genes. The same goes for high scoring test takers. They were born with great genes and benefit from the academic system greatly because of it.
So... is that wrong? Or is just "playing the system"?
Perhaps the real question we should be asking is whether or not college admission directors use test scores in their admission process. Should they be looking for hard workers? Or simply naturally brilliant minds?

1 comment:

  1. I think there is definitely a balance to be made between good test taking abilities and a strong work ethic. You wouldn't want to admit someone to college who is naturally gifted but doesn't try in school, but at the same time someone could be incredibly hard working, but just not have the natural abilities to match. I think it's definitely a combination of both that should be looked at, and one shouldn't outshine the other. However, I can guarantee that hard work in the end does make a person smarter, even if they start off not so smart.

    ReplyDelete