The UB Post

Point

By Jason Lewis

Salisbury University recently became the first school in the University System of Maryland to drop the requirement of SAT scores for applicants with a high school GPA of 3.5 or higher. This move has reopened the decades-old debate over the value of standardized test scores in the admissions process and has given the anti-testing camp renewed hope of relevance.

Salisbury's move comes on the heels of a report by the Maryland Higher Education Commission that analyzed student data at Maryland's four-year public colleges. The report found that the SAT is an accurate predictor of college success, with high scores corresponding to increased retention and greater likelihood of completing a bachelor's degree.

Standardized testing measures certain aspects of a prospective student that high school grades do not. Grading and variation in standards and expectations in sundry high schools across the country is arbitrary; it leaves institutions wanting for a uniform measure to ensure that admissions officers are at least occasionally comparing apples and apples. Too often, the apples-and-oranges comparison occurs with weighted and unweighted grades awarded on the basis of subjective criteria and without indication of the rigor of the program or the content of the coursework.

The University of Baltimore is one of several public universities in Maryland considering a test-optional policy in order to attract students who might not be applying due to their low test scores. Unfortunately, it's hard to tell just what UB considers low. Inquiries at college comparison services, such as the Princeton Review, reveal that UB is already unusual in that it doesn't report average SAT scores for matriculated students. It's hardly surprising given that, up until now, UB applicants would have taken their SATs two to three years prior to applying. UB shouldn't be too worried about being overly selective, either, as it admits an average of 85 percent of applicants.

With the first freshmen class entering this fall at UB in decades, this is not the time to ditch the SAT. Seeking to increase the number of applicants by eliminating criteria seems counterproductive. Attracting students should occur on the basis of the quality of the program offered; in selecting candidates for that program, admissions personnel should use every tool at their disposal.

Lewis, English major and staff writer for The UB Post, can be reached at jason.lewis@ubalt.edu.

CounterPoint

By Josh Murray

Salisbury University's pilot program to make SAT scores optional for students with high grade point averages is a positive step toward improving equity in the university admissions process. While other universities increasingly rely on the College Board's SAT, Salisbury has implemented a balanced system that recognizes the sustained efforts required to build a strong GPA.

Students who earn a 3.5 or better in high school are rewarded, while those with lower marks get the option to augment their applications with SAT scores. Students who excel and earn good grades-even in tough environments-have proven enough. Salisbury's policy relieves them and their families of the financial burden of test and preparation fees.

Since the primary responsibility for education lies within state and local governments, and their ability to pay for education depends on tax revenues which rely on an area's economics, good incomes and high rates of home ownership equal good schools. The opposite holds true, too. Add to this the fact that America's public education system has spent decades swirling the drain and you get an idea of how tough it is for children of the working class or low-income families to compete in college admissions. Then, add another factor—the SAT.

That a four-hour exam holds the same weight in college admissions as four years of hard-earned grades is absurd. While the College Board's rules make accommodations for people with learning and behavioral disabilities, the testing process presents major problems for students whose disabilities are undiagnosed, a problem found most often among the economically disadvantaged.

Additional financial hurdles include a test cost of $41.50 plus $10 to $50 for services such as telephone registration and hand-verification of multiple-choice scores (people with low income are stuck with potentially error-prone automated scoring).

Also, most victims of contemporary American education find it necessary to enroll in special SAT tutoring, which can add another $150 to $900.

Students, parents and policymakers should keep a close eye on the outcome of Salisbury's pilot program. If the results show increased economic and ethnic diversity, then the University System of Maryland should implement it in every school.

Murray, MFA student and contributing writer for The UB Post, can be reached at joshua. murray@ubalt.edu.

If you'd like to debate our Point writer, send your suggestion to ubpost@ubalt.edu.