Standardized tests have been used to measure the proficiency level that students have in various subjects since ancient times. They have also been used for many years to determine whether a person is qualified for a job, to test the general public’s IQ, and much more. Evidently, these tests have been a part of the status quo in the education field, and this can be seen in the modern-day college admissions process.
The topic of standardized tests resonates with many high school students, as they are generally expected to take a standardized test that will determine the course of their post-secondary studies: the ACT. This exam has been designed to measure a high school students’ college readiness in the areas of mathematics, english, reading, and science. This test is scored on a scale from 1 to 36, a 36 being a perfect score.
18, 24, 29, 32, and 36 are all scores that students can potentially receive. These are the scores that play a major role in defining students in the college admissions process. Furthermore, these are the statistics that students become in the eyes of the colleges that they are applying to.
For far too long, the ACT has had a superfluous amount of influence on what schools students are admitted to and what scholarships they receive. While this test does indicate, to a certain degree, the college readiness of students, it penalizes students that are not the “best test takers.” This can be seen in the many students who first start by completing ACT practice tests without time constraints.
Trinity Malmen is a senior that started to prepare for the ACT early in her junior year. When she began preparing for the ACT, she started by taking practice tests without time constraints because she wanted to experiment with the structure of the test before following the actual time conditions. Through this, she found that her scores were higher when she was practicing without time constraints than when she was adhering to the actual conditions of the test.
Malmen also comments on how a student’s mediocre ACT score can completely overshadow many of his or her other achievements. “Some kids are just not naturally good test takers, and that is normal. The ACT doesn’t fully reflect a student’s college readiness. You can be a great student, have a 4.0 GPA, and take all honors classes. Regardless of these things, you can still be screwed over by the ACT in the college admissions process.”
As Malmen stated, many students are in a dilemma because they are capable of doing better on the test but can’t because of the structure and design of the ACT. So why do colleges even use the ACT as a benchmark in the college admissions process if it has the potential to misinterpret the abilities of a student?
The ACT and other similar tests, such as the SAT, are still needed, regardless of the fact that they aren’t the best representation of a student’s potential. Haleema Waheed, a senior in high school, discusses her differing opinion on this controversy. “Some students may argue that it is unfair how much emphasis is placed on the ACT in the college admissions process, but I disagree. There has to be a national standardized test that colleges can use to place students in the same playing field because difficulty of courses, how GPA is determined, and other things of this nature vary from school to school. The ACT may misidentify the preparedness of some students, but it is still a necessity that tends to be an accurate measure in most cases.”
Malmen and Waheed have different perspectives of the the test, but they both make valid arguments. The ACT is a necessity because it shows how students compare to one another without any bias or inconsistencies, but it also penalizes students who simply just don’t test as well. Thus, the ACT should continue to be used as a factor in the college admissions process, but colleges should also not let a simple number completely define whether a student gets into a college or gets a scholarship.
