If you want to equal the playing field college is simply way too late. That said when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. That goes for SAT, or GPA or any other SINGLE metric, so no, the SAT isn't the best way, the best way is taking in as many varied data points as you can to reduce people just spending lots of money and effort on one thing (or cheating on that one thing). That way you can (at leat try) to judge people by a more complete picture of who they are and what their strengths are than just going "here's this one thing that determines if you get higher education"

by FreeEntrance81 1 day ago

Or you could just democratize college to the point where anyone who can pass the classes can get a degree, offer those classes for free, use technology to expand access to everyone.

by opal23 1 day ago

You can get into basically any CC program without much consideration. And then from there transfer into state school. I went back in my late 20s and it was basically just like signing up for swimming lessons. They didn't consider my high school or former college GPAs, or my SAT. Then I transferred to state school and all they wanted for my major was higher than a 2.0 GPA at CC. My situation is a little different since I had a degree, but there were kids from pretty bad school systems in my program too - IIRC all you needed was a high school diploma or GED, and to pass the minimum placement tests (basically high school English and algebra). But I guess a lot of folks are too good for that, or make the perfect the enemy of the good.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I don't know about "best way", but many of the colleges that said it was optional have reversed their decisions and made them mandatory again, with one of the given reasons that in hindsight it was a useful way to identify high performers regardless of family background.

by Anonymous 1 day ago

I suppose that makes sense. People who do really well on a test are going to be good test takers. And test taking the way to get through college. It reminds me of the hiring managers that hire on the basis of being good at interviewing. I feel some somwhere along the way, we lose the point. Is the point to be good at test taking? Or to learn? (or in the case of interviews, do the job)

by Alone-Ad 1 day ago

The 1990s era SAT, yes.

by Puzzled-Score 1 day ago

SAT isn't hard enough.

by No-Flow-9440 1 day ago

How so?

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Typically schools with more brown people are poorer schools.

by Lornahudson 1 day ago

How does make the claim "the SAT is racist" untrue?

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Here (NL) the selection is made on your secondary school exam grades.

by Standard_Fix8114 1 day ago

Same here in Sweden, but you also have the option to do a special test that happens twice a year and can apply with that score instead

by Anonymous 1 day ago

Do you work for the SAT board or something?

by Jakehessel 23 hours ago

Yes, though the test could be better. Give kids a proper education, don't keep passing the buck to the next level.

by Anonymous 23 hours ago

I agree with your idea but would argue AP scores are 1000x more meaningful than SAT scores provided that we make AP tests harder. The questions themselves are fine but you shouldn't be able to get a 5 with a 70%. It should be more like 90%.

by zolaoreilly 22 hours ago

I would argue the SAT being unfair to poor kids comes down to school funding and fees. Kids in poorer districts get a worse education than kids in districts with money. An incredibly intelligent kid could have simply been born into the wrong district and had a family that didn't have the means to move to a better one. That kid is not going to be nurtured as much as a kid that is in a school with better teachers and programs. And then there's simply the fees to take the test. The university i went to only required an ACT score, but you know how many hours i had to work to afford the fee back in 2004? Idk what the fee is now to take the test, but between that and the travel to get there - i had to drive 40 miles - it's just not feasible for poorer kids that don't have the same opportunities.

by Anonymous 22 hours ago

What about the ACT?

by Ok_Scarcity_5908 22 hours ago

Nice try collegeboard

by Anonymous 22 hours ago

Standardized tests became adopted as admissions criteria precisely to put an end to the old legacy network system most places used (and many still do). Every generation has to re-learn the same lessons.

by Anonymous 22 hours ago

It is supposed to be a weighted result that controls for inequality. The score of the SAT is less important than the distribution. Like any standardized tests if you compare one population against another, you will have a discrepancy, but that's not the point of the test. Enough people take it that it creates a population distribution that is valuable to a university or any other institution that might want to see a reasonable prediction. Essentially an SAT test is an IQ test. So let's say you have lower income minorities take it and on average would expect to see lower scores. That isn't really what the test is meant to measure. A high-performing student in that community might be on the higher end of the distribution. That is the student you want to admit. So somebody who gets a 1300 in a poorly performing community is just as desirable to a university as somebody who would receive a 1500 out of an extremely well performing population. The questions on this test themselves are less meaningful. This is not necessarily an unpopular opinion. I just think a lot of people don't really understand how the test is meant to be analyzed.

by Anonymous 22 hours ago