Harvard Returns To Requiring Standardized Testing

Harvard’s Reasons For Requiring Standardized Testing

Like many Universities, Harvard has returned to relying upon standardized testing (SAT, ACT, etc.) in its undergraduate admissions. Two key factors guided Harvard’s decision:

1. Standardized testing works. In other words, standardized testing does an effective job at what it is intended to do: predict with reasonable accuracy the future performance of students in school.
2. Although standardized tests can discriminate against lower socioeconomic groups (due to poor people being less able to afford test prep courses, etc.), the use of standardized testing is less discriminatory against lower socioeconomic groups than the criteria used when standardized test scores are not considered.

Bottom line: standardized testing works and is more fair, resulting in less undesirable discrimination against lower socioeconomic groups. To see an article discussing Harvard’s decision in more detail, please click here.

Mark’s Tangential Political Rant

If I had to describe myself politically, I would say that I am a pragmatist at heart. I am motivated by what works, not which political party the position happens to be affiliated with. In my mind, blindly following a political ideology simply means one has been manipulated by the white noise and hypocrisy that invariably infects politics.

Almost every “hot-button” political issue – tax policy, immigration, reproductive rights, gun rights, universal health care, affirmative action, the criminal justice system, etc. – has been tested in both directions. In other words, if one wants to take a pragmatic view of key political issues, we almost always have extensive evidence of how things actually worked under both scenarios. Most of the time we can see that evidence within our own country (the most useful test). In addition, it sometimes is useful to examine the results in other countries. For example, we have seen how things actually work in our own country when:

• “trickle down” economic policies that favor the wealthy are implemented vs. tax policies that favor the middle class and the poor;
• the criminal justice system chooses to emphasize victim rights vs. defendant rights;
• universal health care (dubbed “socialized medicine” by critics) is an individual right vs. when it is not;
• (1) employers/businesses are allowed to freely discriminate against races, genders, etc. (i.e., before Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), (2) employers/businesses are required to adopt policies that are “race-neutral,” “gender-neutral,” etc. (post Title VII), and (3) employers/businesses are required or permitted to adopt “affirmative action” policies (dubbed “reverse discrimination” by critics);
• the right to an abortion is protected vs. when it is not protected; and
• stringent gun control laws vs. weak/non-existent gun-control laws are put in place.

The list goes on, of course. While we can sometimes debate the results, they often are rather clear if one chooses to view them with intellectual honesty and objectivity. Unfortunately (in my opinion), many people have no interest in honestly and objectively examining actual results pragmatically. Instead, they merely repeat the talking points of politicians supporting their ideologically based position.

With that in mind, and returning back to the “standardized testing” issue at hand, it will be interesting to see how this politically charged topic plays out. Undoubtedly, ideologues will continue to argue their position loudly. However, I am curious to see how actual results – i.e., standardized tests being a useful predictor of performance and resulting in less undesirable discrimination – will affect the future decisions of other Universities and legislators.