In high school, I had a friend who was an achiever. He was on student council and was involved with drama. However, in order to get into MIT, his dream college, excelling in academics became his number one priority. He would take a multitude of practice SAT tests, aware of the fact that his extracurricular activities would not play into admissions without an appropriate SAT score. After taking the test, he morosely informed me that his final score was a whopping 250 points below his average score from practice tests. No MIT for him.
This is the problem with standardized tests — AP tests, IB tests and the college placement exams. The hours spent on integrating functions or taking notes on the Civil War are for naught if the final test result is failure. Even if we have garnered an array of knowledge on chemistry or economics, the test evaluators will dismiss us if we do not pass because of a poor night’s sleep. True, tests emphasize “performing when it matters.” However, this argument is valid only if one believes that learning should be treated as a sport.
Are we really in school for the purpose of competing with each other on tests? Aren’t we in school more for the sake of learning and discovering the truths of the world?
Because colleges place enormous value on test scores, however, we are forced to study “for the test,” not for genuine interest in a subject.
To succeed in this atmosphere, we enter a pattern of mechanical studying. We train to pace ourselves during a timed exam. We memorize countless facts and theorems. By the time test day arrives, we forget about our inherent love for animals and plants, cells and molecules, or the government and the legal system: All that matters is bubbling in every answer on the Scantron sheet correctly.
Standardized testing should have a minimal impact on the measurement of student success in school.
Standardized tests have almost no application in the “real world.” Many mechanical engineers who can’t score an “A” on a required physics exam will still know how to design a robust structure for a bridge or building. These architects may have proficient hands-on skills and construction ingenuity — skills tests do not measure. Moreover, just because someone scores 100 percent on a physics exam does not mean he or she will become the best engineer. In high school, I scored the highest on all the tests in my AP physics class. I studied hard in order to grow familiar with problems on rotational motion and forces. When it came to applying my textbook skills in building a balsa wood bridge at the end of the year, however, I floundered. My feeble 40- gram bridge held a meek 78 pounds, the worst in the class. I am a living example of the insufficiency of standardized tests in measuring skill.
Ironically, I owe much of my success so far in life to standardized tests. AP tests have prepared me for the rigorous college life. My SAT and PSAT scores have helped make attending a university affordable for me
However, I have also become a victim, like so many other high sch
ool students, of the robotic, mechanical studying necessary to succeed on tests. In fact, I used to love biology; I considered it for my major.
Taking AP Biology, however, sapped away my passion for plants, genetics and the body systems. I, like so many others, studied “for the test.” In doing so, I lost passion for biology.
Of course, education is necessary for anyone to hold jobs and make remarkable contributions to the world. However, are standardized tests really the best way to measure someone’s skills and foster learning?
Reach Kenneth at kcqian@asu.edu.
