CP

Counterplan: In the United States, colleges and universities ought to

make standardized tests optional in undergraduate admissions
decisions.

The counterplan is the best of both worlds and solves the case – it
improves diversity, limits economic hierarchies, and has a laundry list
of benefits - but still gives students the option of submitting.
Scott Jaschik, 2018
Jaschik is one of the three founders of Inside Higher Ed. With Doug Lederman, he leads the editorial operations of Inside Higher Ed, overseeing
news content, opinion pieces, career advice, blogs and other features. Scott is a leading voice on higher education issues, quoted regularly in
publications nationwide, and publishing articles on colleges in publications such as The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington
Post, Salon, and elsewhere. He has been a judge or screener for the National Magazine Awards, the Online Journalism Awards, the Folio
Editorial Excellence Awards, and the Education Writers Association Awards. Scott served as a mentor in the community college fellowship
program of the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media, of Teachers College, Columbia University. He is a member of the board of the
Education Writers Association. From 1999-2003, Scott was editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education. Scott grew up in Rochester, N.Y., and
graduated from Cornell University in 1985. “Making the Case for Test Optional.” Inside Higher ED,
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/04/27/large-study-finds-colleges-go-test-optional-become-more-diverse-and-maintain.

A major such study was released Thursday -- offering data from 28 colleges
and universities and 955,774 applicants over multi-year periods for each of
those institutions. The institutions studied were all four-year institutions
with test-optional policies, and they were compared to peer institutions
that require testing. The report, which generally supports test-optional policies, is by Steve Syverson, assistant vice
chancellor for enrollment management at the University of Washington at Bothell; Valerie W. Franks, a consultant; and William C. Hiss, a
former dean of admissions at Bates College who has been a longtime proponent and scholar of test-optional policies. The conclusion of the
new report says the findings show that tests indeed fail to identify talented applicants who can succeed in higher education -- and that
applicants who opt not to submit scores are in many cases making wise decisions. The test-optional movement, they write, reflects a
broader shift in society away from "a narrow assessment" of potential. Among the findings from the sample studied:

The years following adoption of a test-optional policy saw increases in the total number of applications -- by an average of 29 percent at
private institutions and 11 percent at public institutions.

While the degrees varied, institutions that went test optional saw gains in the numbers of black and Latino students applying and being
admitted to their institutions.

About one-fourth of all applicants to the test-optional colleges opted not to submit scores. (The colleges studied all consider the SAT or ACT
scores of those who submit them.)

Underrepresented minority students were more likely than others to decide not to submit. Among black students, 35 percent opted not to
submit. But the figure was only 18 percent for white students. (Women were more likely than men to decide not to submit scores.)

"Non-submitters" (as the report termed those who didn't submit scores) were slightly less likely to be admitted to the colleges to which they
applied, but their yield (the rates at which accepted applicants enroll) was higher.

First-year grades were slightly lower for nonsubmitters, but they ended up highly successful, graduating at equivalent rates or -- at some
institutions -- slightly higher rates than did those who submitted test scores. This, the report says, is "the ultimate proof of success."
The College Board referred questions about the new report to Jack Buckley, a former College Board official who is one of the co-editors of
Measuring Success. Buckley said he found the evidence in the report to be "all over the place," with some examples backing test-optional
policies and others not. He said the study lacked a sufficiently rigorous way to determine the impact of going test optional. Most liberal arts
colleges (a sector that has been quick to embrace test-optional admissions) have been getting more diverse in recent years, Buckley said. He
said he wasn't questioning the data reported by the colleges studied, but the ability to establish causation. Of the diversity reported in the
study, he said, "that doesn't mean that test optional caused it." But Akil Bello, who as director of equity and access for the Princeton Review
works with low-income and minority students in New York City and nationally, said the findings rang true to him. Bello said he believes
standardized tests fail to measure the potential of many minority and low-income students, leaving them at a disadvantage in being
considered for admission. Further, he said, testing costs money, and it can be expensive for low-income applicants. And he said that colleges
send an important, encouraging message to such students by going test optional. "When a college announces a test-optional policy, it also
conveys to students that the college is aware of and sensitive to issues that impact low-income and underrepresented students and this
awareness can signal to applicants an aware and inviting institutional culture," Bello said.
 NC
Infinite Regress
Action theory
bindingness
And, reason must be universal –
Thus, the standard is respecting universal freedom.
Contention
There are two arguments:
1] free market
2] Score freedom
 Case
SATs are an objective measure of student ability and provide
opportunities for disadvantaged kids to get into colleges on the
strength of their scores. Differences in score are due to socio-
economic factors that are inevitable, and it’s empirically proven that
alternative metrics are highly biased towards rich white applicants,
Wai et al. 3/22
Jonathan Wai, Matt Brown, Christopher Chabris. "No one likes the SAT. It’s still the fairest thing about admissions. ", March 22 2019.
Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/no-one-likes-the-sat-its-still-the-fairest-thing-about-
admissions/2019/03/22/5fa67a16-4c00-11e9-b79a-961983b7e0cd_story.html, Accessed 8-30-2019, WHS-AL

It has become a mantra in some quarters to assert that standardized tests measure wealth
more than intellectual ability or academic potential, but this is not actually the case. These tests
clearly assess verbal and mathematical skills, which a century of psychological science shows are not
mere reflections of upbringing. Research has consistently found that ability tests like the
SAT and the ACT are strongly predictive of success in college and beyond, even after accounting for a student’s
socioeconomic status. Parents in the top 1 percent of income are quite likely to be above

average in intelligence, conscientiousness, self-control and other traits that can set the
stage for success. But they also probably experienced a large dose of luck — favorable
circumstances, coincidences, right-place-right-time accidents — and their children won’t
necessarily have the same kind of luck. In fact, their children’s test scores tend to mark
them for lower-ranked, maybe even much lower-ranked, colleges than their parents
might expect based on their own economic achievements. According to College Board data from 2016,
the average child of parents who earn more than $200,000 per year has a total SAT
score of 1155 (on the current scale of 400 to 1600). This is well above the expected
score of a median-income child, which is about 1000. But it is nowhere near exceptional:
It is perfectly typical of a student at Syracuse University (ranked No. 288 on our list) but extremely low for No. 9 Stanford (where the average
The children swept up in the
SAT is about 1475) or even No. 41, the University of Southern California (1380).

admissions scandal exemplify this: If the SAT were nothing but a wealth test, then Lori
Loughlin, Mossimo Giannulli and other super-rich parents would not have had to cheat
to get their kids into the latter two schools. In reality, they had to fake intellectual ability — the one thing they could
not buy. A worried one-percenter who didn’t want to resort to crime might instead

campaign to remove standardized tests from the admissions process. This would
increase the importance of extracurricular activities, interviews and athletics, and
wealth provides many more options for gaming these squishy metrics. Even high school grades,
touted as an objective substitute for tests, may not be immune from the influences of wealth: A recent study by the economist Seth
Gershenson found that GPAs were inflated more from 2005 to 2016 in the richest parts of North Carolina than in the rest of the state, echoing
previous studies of other areas that used different methodologies. What about coaching and other forms of test preparation? Highly
paid tutors make bold claims about how much they can raise SAT scores (“my students routinely
 but there is no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that
improve their scores by more than 400 points”),

coaching can reliably provide more than a modest boost — especially once simple practice effects and other
expected improvements from retaking a test are accounted for. For the typical rich kid, a more realistic gain of 50 points would represent
the difference between the average students at Syracuse and No. 197 University of Colorado at Boulder — significant, perhaps, but not
The fairest reading of the evidence is that the SAT and the ACT have tremendous
dramatic.

value, precisely because they are the only truly uniform, objective and predictive ways
to compare candidates with widely varying academic and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Even after the scandal, standardized tests are popular with the American public. Advocates of eliminating them should realize that SAT scores
for every privileged student whose bad SAT score keeps
don’t just block students from elite colleges —

them out, there is another student whose SAT helps get them in. Indeed, at one time the
SAT opened doors for Jewish students who were intellectually qualified yet essentially
barred from attending Harvard, Yale and Princeton. And the recent movement to make tests optional does not
seem to have increased student-body diversity. It remains true that white and Asian students score higher on average than those of other racial
backgrounds, but if the goal is to help all students get into the best colleges they can, we should consider a proposal by the education scholar
Susan Dynarski: “SAT/ACT for all,” a universal requirement that every high school student take a standardized college admissions test, free of
charge during school hours. She argues that this would help underprivileged students far more than eliminating the tests. To this worthy plan,
we would add a mandatory practice run or two, to help mitigate differences in preparation and familiarity among test-takers. Studies find that
simply taking practice tests increases scores on the final test, even in the absence of other preparation activities. Colleges can do their part by
ending score-submission policies that give advantages to students who can afford to take tests over and overto maximize their results. And test
The value of universal testing is supported by the work of
companies can do theirs by improving security.

economists Caroline Hoxby and Christopher Avery, who used test data to identify a
“hidden supply” of high-potential students from low-income families who don’t even
consider top colleges and universities where they could receive large scholarships. But if
universal testing identified high-ability candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds, they could be advised on how to take advantage of
financial aid programs to apply to and attend better schools than they would otherwise. Then the combination of their abilities and their top-
standardized
quality college educations would make them very likely to climb the socioeconomic ladder. Even without such changes,

test scores are more objective, predictive and verifiable than any of the other criteria
used in college admissions. As we saw in the recent scandal, even athletic experience can be easily falsified by anyone with
access to Photoshop and a nice bank account. To help all students find their best opportunities, we should increase the use of testing in the
college application and admission process, not throw it out.

Turn - Abolition of standardized tests in admissions leads colleges to

simply use GPA, which is worse – GPA inflation is more pronounced
among affluent, white high schools while SAT scores have remained
steady across the board, Buckley 18
Buckley, Jack, "OPINION: Standardized tests offer ‘a neutral yardstick’ in college admissions", 4-24-2018, Hechinger Report,
https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-standardized-tests-offer-a-neutral-yardstick-in-college-admissions/, Accessed 8-8-2019, WHS-AL

We attempt to help admissions officers answer two important questions: “To what extent should standardized tests play a role in college
admission?” and “What is the best and fairest way to assess a prospective student?” These discussions are more important than ever, as
college admissions officers are seeing the largest and most diverse applicant pools ever ,
varying levels of academic rigor across high schools, and increased public scrutiny of the role and impact of higher education in American
research that upholds the value of testing as an important piece of the
society. The book features

holistic admissions process. For example, two University of Minnesota researchers confront eight common myths about
standardized testing, including the notions that tests are unrelated to real-world success and only a measure of socioeconomic status. The book
 standardized test scores — especially when combined with grades — have
also provides detailed evidence that

significant predictive validity for college performance and completion across racial groups, genders
and socioeconomic statuses. New research presented for the first time in this book shows clearly that grade inflation in high school is real:
Grades have been on the rise for the last 20 years, while SAT scores have remained
relatively steady. With these trends especially pronounced among students at affluent,
mostly white high schools, the idea that relying more heavily on grades will reduce inequities
in the admissions process seems implausible.

Turn – “holistic” measures of applicants benefits rich, white applicants

way more – the person who’s able to afford a violin is more likely to
be first chair, DeBoer 18
DeBoer, Freddie. "The Progressive Case for the SAT", 3-30-2018, No Publication, http://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/sat-class-race-
inequality-college-admission, Accessed 8-13-2019, WHS-AL

Let’s look at thealternative metrics for student performance: “soft” criteria and high school grade-point average
(GPA). Detractors of entrance exams often argue for more “holistic” methods of evaluating

students than tests, pushing for greater emphasis on student activities, college essays, and letters of recommendation. They argue
that these things allow them to select students that are more than just grades and test
scores and build a diverse student body. As Jennifer Finney Boylan put it in a piece decrying the SAT, the only way to
fairly choose between applicants is “to look at the complex portrait of their lives.” But this reasoning goes directly

against the stated goal of equality. It should be obvious: affluent parents have far
greater ability to provide opportunities for extracurricular (and frequently out-of-school) activities
than less affluent parents do. The student who is captain of the sailing team, president
of the robotics club, and who spent a summer building houses in the Global South will
likely look more “holistically” valuable than a poorer student who has not had the
resources to do similar activities. Who is more likely to be a star violin player or to have
completed a summer internship at a fancy magazine: a poor student or an affluent one?
College essays are more easily improved through coaching than test scores, and
teachers at expensive private schools likely feel more pressure to write effusive letters
of recommendation than their peers in public schools. Favoring the “soft” aspects of a
college application is straightforwardly beneficial to the more privileged at the expense
of the less.

Not considering standardized tests empirically does not increase first-

gen or minority enrollment and only reinforces the same structures
that exclude minority students from colleges, Belasco et al. 15
Belasco, A. S., Rosinger, K. O., & Hearn, J. C. (2015). The Test-Optional Movement at America’s Selective Liberal Arts Colleges: A Boon for Equity
or Something Else? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 206–223. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714537350
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.3102/0162373714537350#articleCitationDownloadContainer Accessed 8/13/2019 //WHS-AL
Our findings suggest that test-optional admissions policies, as a whole, have done little to meet their manifest goals of expanding educational
opportunity for low-income and minority students. However, we find evidence that test-optional policies fulfill a latent function of increasing
the perceived selectivity and status of these institutions. In doing so, these policies may serve to reproduce and maintain the current social
structure—and its inequalities—within U.S. higher education. While this study provides evidence of how test-optional admissions policies shape
diversity and admissions profiles, more broadly, it serves as a reminder of the values that are reflected in the process of selecting students into
liberal arts colleges. The SAT and other standardized tests were initially adopted to sort students according to academic ability rather than
status and background. This sorting mechanism, however, favored wealthy students and reinforced their disproportionate presence at the
nation’s most selective institutions. In a way, the SAT became an adaptive mechanism that upper-class families used to secure their future
social status (Alon, 2009)—which, in part, may explain why the SAT continues to predominate the selective college admissions process. While
selective institutions have become increasingly open to considering SAT alternatives, other standardized assessments—including the ACT,
Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate (IB), and SAT subject tests—are vulnerable to the same inequities. For example, affluent
students and families can often “buy” their way to improved scores on any standardized test by hiring a private tutor, enrolling in a test
preparation course, and/or registering for several administrations of the same exam (Lemann, 1999; Lewin, 2013; Vigdor & Clotfelter, 2003).
Previous research shows that one or more of these costly strategies usually results in improved standardized test scores and better admissions
prospects at selective colleges and universities (Buchmann et al., 2010). Despite the clear relationship between privilege and standardized test
performance, the adoption of test-optional admissions policies does not seem an adequate solution to providing educational opportunity for
low-income and minority students. In fact, test-optional admission policies may perpetuate stratification within the postsecondary sector, in
Without access to
particular, by assigning greater importance to credentials that are more accessible to advantaged populations.

standardized test data for every applicant, test-optional colleges rely more heavily on school-
specific measures, such as strength of curriculum or involvement outside the classroom,
to draw comparisons between prospective students; however, several studies reveal
that the availability of advanced (AP, IB, and honors) courses and extracurricular
opportunities is unequally distributed across socioeconomic groups (Espenshade & Radford, 2009;
Iatarola, Conger, & Long, 2011; Klugman, 2013; Perna et al., 2013), and that low-SES students face greater

obstacles to participating in the classes and activities that facilitate selective college
enrollment (Klugman, 2012). As a result, test-optional colleges may be inadvertently trading one inequitable policy for another—a
troubling notion given that 11 additional selective liberal arts colleges have adopted test-optional polices in the past 2 years alone,7 advancing
what Diver (2006) referred to as a “new front in the admissions arms race.” Although implications for policy and practice are not entirely clear,

eliminating or de-emphasizing standardized tests in the

our study reveals that

admissions process has not reduced educational inequalities, on average.

These results indicate that the connection between social status and college admission is deeply embedded (Thacker, 2005), and perhaps more
selective institutions cannot be
than the test-optional movement could have predicted. Our study also indicates that

relied upon, at least solely, to stem disparities in postsecondary access, which is not entirely
surprising, given that most selective colleges and universities rely on a host of external resource providers that place significant emphasis on
institutional position and rank (e.g., students, families, government, industry, etc.; Bastedo & Bowman, 2011; Meredith, 2004). Nevertheless, if
colleges are sincere in their desires to increase access and enroll
test-optional and other selective

more underrepresented students, they might consider acknowledging the SAT and other
similar tests as imperfect yet useful indicators of academic achievement, as Diver (2006) and
Epstein (2009) suggested, while learning to more appropriately situate a student’s test score within his or her particular context.

Standardized tests are essential to college scholarship qualification

that are necessary to alleviate cost burden for less wealthy students,
Ellis 18
Sonya Ellis (professional tutor and contributing education writer with Varsity Tu- tors). “Why Standardized Tests Matter Beyond College
Admissions." US News and World Report. April 23, 2018. https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college- admissions-playbook/
articles/2018-04-2313-benefits-of-standardized-testing-beyond- college-admissions
 tests like the ACT and SAT
VERY FEW high school students welcome the opportunity to sit for a standardized test. Instead,

are often met with annoyance, dread or indifference. However, standardized exams have certain
benefits. Some are obvious, such as helping applicants gain admission to a college or university. Here are three advantages of
standardized tests that may be less evident to students. I. Qualification for scholarships: One of the best known

score-dependent scholarships is the National Merit Scholarship Program. This $2,500

scholarship is awarded to high school students based on their PSAT/NMSQT score. However, this is

not the only scholarship students can win. Certain colleges and universities offer financial assistance on the

basis of ACT or SAT scores. For instance, the University of Missouri's Mizzou Scholars Award —
a renewable scholarship of $10,000 per year — requires a minimum ACT score of 33
or a minimum SAT score of 1490. Speak with your short list of schools to determine what scholarships might be available
based on your standardized test scores. You can also search for awards by ACT score and SAT score on Scholarships.com. Con- ducting thorough
research and completing an appropriate study plan for any standardized tests you take can lessen the financial
burden of college.