An amusing (because it's positive) editorial on testing from the Arizona college newspaper:
They say the tests are ruining the educational landscape -- that they're causing students to study for nothing else...Many want to see them eliminated. These opponents point to statistics like the amount of money people spend on preparation, $310 million a year by one count, as signs that the standardized-test mania has gone too far and that a return to the core values of education is warranted.However, such logic fails to understand the purpose that they serve. Simply put, standardized tests serve one vital function – as providers of a means of comparison to admissions panels.
What makes them so valuable? Why can't admissions panels look at more important factors? Factors like grades, letters of recommendation, and extra-curricular activities? That's where the standardized part comes in. Without standardized tests, there is no way to compare students across the country. With GPA, for example, there's no way to tell whether the 3.6 from Northwestern is more impressive than the 3.6 from Virginia.
So standardized tests are good because they're standardized. But rather than complain, UA students should cheer this opportunity as they approach grad school rather than boo it. It's hard enough competing with students from big name schools like MIT and Princeton. With the GRE/MCAT/LSAT/GMAT to level the playing field, students can show that they're just as sharp as the Ivy-League trained type.
In fact, that's why tests of these kinds were developed. With all the anti-testing commentary in the press, it's easy to forget that. What's more, it's always driven me crazy that opponents produce the over-inflated and unproven expensive test prep course as evidence (somehow) that the tests themselves are a problem.
Cute photo of the author, by the way.
Also, this is the nth article I've seen that references the book, "Freakonomics," so I'm going to have to break down and buy a copy.
Posted by kswygert at June 23, 2005 11:58 AM