|
|
|
SAT by the Numbers
MATH (out of 800)
VERBAL (out of 800) |
Recently, there have been increased complaints by students and parents that
the SAT (formerly known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, now just a standard test given to high school students for college) is biased against minorities and
low-income families. Many have even called for the elimination of tests
like the SAT, because they feel that such a test is not an accurate factor
in determining whether certain students are qualified to go to
universities and colleges. Is the SAT racially biased?
It is widely known that Hispanics and
African-American score worse that whites and Asian-Americans, but how much
worse? The results are astounding. According to a poll done by the College
Board in 1997-1998, Asian- Americans (560) on average, score 137 points
higher than African-Americans (432) do and 92 points higher than Hispanics
(468) do out of a possible 800 points. Whites score a 526 on math, 34
points lower than Asians, but still significantly higher than blacks and
Hispanics. In verbal, whites lead with a 526, and Asians, who are expected
to struggle on the verbal section, still score a 496 as compared to the
Hispanics 466 and Blacks 434.
The test makers at ETS are now being called biased because of the low
percentage of Hispanic and black enrollment in college, partly due to their
sub-par SAT scores. The supporters of the test claim that the SAT is a sure
indicator of how prepared a student is for college --not a screen to filter
out minority students. But just how fair is the SAT? Well, every time a
student takes the SAT, he or she takes an extra section called the
experimental section along with the others. The student doesn't know which
section is the experimental one, so he or she treats it like normal section. If,
for instance, a large majority of a minority gets a question on that section
wrong, that question will be deleted. If not, the question will be used in
later tests, many years down the line. This is what ETS (Educational
Testing Service) claims as a balancing factor in SAT test making, and
should theoretically keep the SAT from being minority-biased.
When all is said and done, the SAT is still a qualified measure of the
success a student will have in college. A Hispanic student who has a 4.0
grade point average will not score any lower or higher than a white
student with a 4.0 GPA, according to ETS. The real problem lies not in the income of the family,
but the priorities. SAT prep courses and books are proven to help any
student who wants to get a good score, given that the student truly wants
to improve, and prioritizes his activities that way. Typically, Asian and
white families stress education and add more pressure to the students than Hispanic and black families do. Also, students in Hispanic and black families tend to work at a younger age instead of preparing wholly for college, an important factor in the scores of the tests.
A good SAT book can be bought for twenty dollars, surely worth the
investment of a good college and later a good job, so the difference
between high-income and low-income families does not stretch that far; not
saying that high-income children do not have an advantage, but that the
advantage is very small. Blaming the SAT as a biased test is like blaming
the yardstick for being gender biased --men are generally taller than
women, but does that mean that the yardstick is biased? Racial inequality
is hard to accept, but a minority leader must realize: what will
eliminating the SAT do to colleges? Eliminating any sort of previously
established measure of success will surely make the failure rate go down.
An example provided by Education Week's Charles A. Kiesler: "Suppose that a
college basketball coach suddenly decided to ignore height when handing out
athletic scholarships. His or her failure rate would definitely increase.
Height in basketball is a reliable but imperfect predictor of success. It
isn't equally good for everybody. But when you ignore it, the failure rate
--on average --will increase."
The SAT, in essence, was not meant to be the sole determining factor for
acceptance to colleges --just as average SAT score is not a good
determining factor for educational systems of states. Its original purpose was to actually give minorities and
students of lower-income families an opportunity to compete with wealthier kids in getting into top colleges. Percentage of
students taking the test in a state should be considered, just as course
work, GPA, and extracurricular activities should be considered for
acceptance into college.
Coincidentally, the ones who are complaining are the Hispanics and blacks
who do poorly on the test, and the ones who support the test are using
Asians as an example for the test's neutrality. Asians are minorities, and
many Asian households do not hold English conversations at the dinner
table. Yet, they excel at the SAT. On average, there are many more passages
about Hispanics, blacks, and whites than there are about Asians. Does this
mean that the SAT is biased against Asians? Are Asians actually
underperforming on the SAT?
In reality, there is no such thing as perfect balance. ETS tries its
hardest, but the SAT cannot be perfect. Biased against minorities? Perhaps.
Is the bias minuscule? Yes. Can it be overcome by buying a twenty dollar
book? Probably. But despite all this overwhelming support for the SAT,
there will still be minority students that should go to college but eventually do not,
and ones that do go to college who shouldn't. The SAT might not be
perfectly balanced, but it comes pretty darn close.
|
|
Cover Story | Discussions | Features | Store | About Hoching Copyright (C) 1996-99. All rights reserved. This page was progammed by THE BROTHERHOOD OF THE HOCHING CLAN, located in Edison , NJ |
