Round 1
Pro: For many universities, standardized tests such as the SAT are a common method for determining which students will do well academically. The assumption is that those who do well enough on these tests have the intelligence to succeed in college. But there are flaws in the standardized testing system. A large one is the fact that these tests take place only at select times. What happens if a student happens to be having a bad day and does poorly? That score is on their record and gives the impression that their knowledge or intelligence may be inadequate for success at the university level. Many studies show that a better indicator of student success is their high school GPA, which covers a longer span of time, thus giving a more accurate impression of how well they could succeed in college. Not only that, standardized tests aren’t so good at measuring characteristics of students that could be beneficial to their success in higher education, such as creativity, curiosity, self-determination and resourcefulness. These traits can help a student overcome a knowledge barrier, but the reverse isn’t necessarily true. Yet current knowledge levels are often considered more important than the potential to exceed that knowledge.
Con: The main objective of standardized tests is to have a common basis of evaluation for every student. Although it is difficult to assess a person’s creativity or self-determination through a few hours of testing, they can still be designed that way. Don’t we have personality tests and IQ tests to test our intelligence? It is just a matter of designing the test as per the requirement. Also, the importance of GPA, academic achievements or work experience is nowhere being questioned here. Rather the fact that they cover a longer time and can have a biased basis of evaluation is the issue. Most of these standardized tests, including non-academic ones like the personality and behavioral ones, have flexible timings and can be taken multiples times. Tests like the GRE and TOEFL can also be postponed if needed. Evaluating students from different schools across the nation and the world based on their academic performance is unfair because each school has its own culture of teaching and judging. There is a possibility of bias too. And there is no fool-proof way to know that except through these tests.
Round 2
Pro: The problem with the idea that standardized tests are not biased is that the fact that that doesn’t always hold true. The people who design these tests assume a basic level of knowledge and way of thinking that may not have been developed in the students. For example, research has shown that some questions designed using “simple” language are actually using words and phrases that are more common in privileged circles, thus leaving minorities at a disadvantage for these questions, since they aren’t quite as “simple” as the test makers assume. In addition, it’s difficult to make a standardized test that can encompass the variety in education. For example, a teacher may spend more time teaching one facet of algebra because they think that it will be more important to remember that part than some of the others. If the test makers don’t agree, then everyone from that particular class may do poorly. Even the possible solution of Common Core doesn’t account for the states, private schools, home educators and foreign schools that have chosen to forgo its use or had different standards in place. Perhaps the question shouldn’t be whether standardized testing should be used as a requirement, but rather, is it really even standardized at all?
Con: It is cumbersome and time-consuming to filter out thousands of applications just on the basis of subjective achievements. Standardized tests, which carry automated grading system, make it easier to have objective filters in the admission phase and saves a ton of time for the university. The best thing about such tests is that they do not identify with any particular nation or region, but are general. This aids in the preparation for those tests as they have common sources for learning and equal access for everyone. The time limit on these tests should be thought of as a reality, that life need not give you ample time to apply your skills and test your experience. Besides, requiring potential students to take a common test helps universities see a trend in the characteristics of future students. Consequently, it’s easier to rank universities based on the eligibility requirements, at least with respect to the entrance tests.. It should also be noted that designing such exams becomes easier because of a simple format and instructions. This efficiency provides more opportunities for students to chose a time that works for them.. Finally, tracing one’s progress becomes effortless by comparing the results with previous attempts. This helps teachers in preparing the study material as per the student’s progress. This is especially true with non-entrance exams.
Con side debated by Paras Ghumare
