#NNPA BlackPress

What Do Standardized Tests Say About College Achievement?

SACRAMENTO OBSERVER — The SAT is one of the longest-standing standardized college admissions in the United States. Along with its counterpart, the ACT, these tests have been at the center of heated debates. Some say these tests only serve to reinforce racial inequities in education. Supporters of SAT and ACT scores say that they help universities understand how likely students will be to succeed in college by predicting grades, chances of graduation, and success after college.

Published

4 months ago

December 1, 2024

admin

By Annie Lennon | Stacker | The Sacramento Observer

(Stacker) – Every year, millions of high schoolers prepare for the arduous process of college admissions. Most will take either the SAT or the ACT, multi-hour examinations that can feel like the climax of an epic battle students have been waging ever since they entered the halls of formal education.

But is it a battle worth fighting in the first place?

The SAT is one of the longest-standing standardized college admissions in the United States. Along with its counterpart, the ACT, these tests have been at the center of heated debates. Some say these tests only serve to reinforce racial inequities in education. Supporters of SAT and ACT scores say that they help universities understand how likely students will be to succeed in college by predicting grades, chances of graduation, and success after college.

Numerade analyzed academic research to see what standardized test scores say about academic success.

The SAT contains two sections: math and evidence-based reading and writing. Most answers are multiple-choice, but some math questions require entering an answer instead of selecting one. An optional SAT essay was discontinued in 2021, however, a small number of schools still choose to offer it.

The ACT is a little different in that it contains four sections: English, math, reading, and science. All of its questions are multiple-choice, and it has an optional writing section that may be required by some universities.

Numerade

Standardized testing may be better predictors than generally supposed

In a study published in January 2024, Harvard-based research initiative Opportunity Insights, along with researchers from Brown University, Dartmouth College, and the National Bureau of Economic Research, investigated the value of standardized test scores in the college admission process. They found that SAT and ACT scores—but, surprisingly, not high school GPA scores—can better predict academic success in college. “Test scores have vastly more predictive power than is commonly understood in the popular debate,” John Friedman, the lead author of the study, told The New York Times.

The study looked at students who were admitted to all eight Ivy League colleges plus Stanford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Duke, and the University of Chicago between 2017 and 2022. It found that students with perfect scores on the SAT or ACT, 1600 or 36 respectively, achieved a 0.43 point-higher first-year college GPA than students who earned SAT and ACT scores of 1200 and 25. However, students with a perfect (scaled) GPA of 4.0 in high school achieve less than a 0.1-point higher GPA in their first year of college than students with a high school GPA of 3.2.

Some have raised concerns that these standardized test scores may not show the full picture. They worry these tests could be biased against students who aren’t able to afford the additional cost of tutors or other resources that can help them prepare for college, a question the Opportunity Insights paper also answered. Controlling for family income, race, gender, and legacy status, the study found that there was no evidence that students from higher-resource backgrounds performed better than peers from lower-resource backgrounds. In fact, their college GPAs were practically identical.

All together, the researchers concluded that standardized test scores may help highly selective colleges provide upward mobility and accept students from a wide range of backgrounds.

Numerade

A history of imperfectly measuring potential

Standardized tests emerged alongside the growth of publicly funded education in the mid-1800s. As more children entered the education system, oral examinations were replaced with standardized written tests.

The first standardized college entrance exams in the U.S. appeared with the College Entrance Examination Board in 1900, formed from 12 colleges, including Harvard University and Columbia University. SATs were introduced less than a century ago in 1926, and ACTs came in 1959. Both became staples of the college application process.

In recent years, however, some have started to doubt the efficacy of standardized tests for college applications. In May 2020, for example, the University of California decided to drop SAT/ACT scores to allow for fairer evaluation of college applications.

The COVID-19 pandemic spurred other universities to reconsider their SAT/ACT policies too as the testing bodies were forced to close temporarily. During this time, many colleges made test scores optional.

Since then, however, some colleges such as Dartmouth, Yale, and Brown have announced that they will once again require applications to include standardized test scores. Other colleges however, such as the University of California system, have declined to even consider these scores, while others like Emory and Vanderbilt have extended test-optional policies.

Whether or not colleges decide to include standardized test scores in their admissions process depends on views about how well they help identify the most academically prepared students.

Previous research published in October 2023 from Opportunity Insights shows that students from less advantaged backgrounds receive lower standardized test scores on average and are less likely to undergo testing than peers from higher-income families. Only a quarter of children from the bottom 20% of income distribution take the SAT or ACT versus about 80% for those in higher-income families. For those who do take the test, only 2.5% of those in the lower-income bracket score 1300 or higher versus 17% for those in the top 20%.

With the findings from the latter Opportunity Insights research, the SAT and ACT may easily be dismissed as tests only for the wealthy. However, economist David Deming, who worked on the paper, cautions against oversimplifying these exams as “wealth tests.” Doing so overlooks their capability to help administrators discover the potential in candidates regardless of background.

He argued that if SATs or ACTs were removed altogether, it might disadvantage lower-income students even more. Deming told the Harvard Gazette, “If you get rid of the SAT, as many colleges have done, what you have left is things that are also related to wealth, probably even more so. Whether you can write a persuasive college essay, whether you can have the kinds of experiences that give you high ratings for extracurricular activities and leadership; those things are incredibly related to wealth.”

Story editing by Carren Jao. Additional editing by Kelly Glass. Copy editing by Tim Bruns.

This story originally appeared on Numerade and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.

admin

Posts by admin

Up Next

UNCF Economic Impact Report Highlights Unmatched Contributions and Urgent Funding Needs of HBCUs

Don't Miss

COMMENTARY: What We Should Think and Do in This Era

admin

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts

Published

2 days ago

March 21, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown

BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

The new budget framework approved by Congress may result in sweeping changes to the federal safety net and tax code. The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts. A new analysis from Yale University’s Budget Lab shows the proposals in the House’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Resolution would lead to a drop in after-tax-and-transfer income for the poorest households while significantly boosting revenue for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, Congress passed its Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res. 14), setting revenue and spending targets for the next decade. The resolution outlines $1.5 trillion in gross spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions between FY2025 and FY2034, along with $500 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.

Congressional Committees have now been instructed to identify policy changes that align with these goals. Three of the most impactful committees—Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means—have been tasked with proposing major changes. The Agriculture Committee is charged with finding $230 billion in savings, likely through changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. Energy and Commerce must deliver $880 billion in savings, likely through Medicaid reductions. Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee must craft tax changes totaling no more than $4.5 trillion in new deficits, most likely through extending provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the resolution does not specify precise changes, reports suggest lawmakers are eyeing steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid benefits while seeking to make permanent tax provisions that primarily benefit high-income individuals and corporations.

To examine the potential real-world impact, Yale’s Budget Lab modeled four policy changes that align with the resolution’s goals:

A 30 percent across-the-board cut in SNAP funding.
A 15 percent cut in Medicaid funding.
Permanent extension of the individual and estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Permanent extension of business tax provisions including 100% bonus depreciation, expense of R&D, and relaxed limits on interest deductions.

Yale researchers determined that the combined effect of these policies would reduce the after-tax-and-transfer income of the bottom 20 percent of earners by 5 percent in the calendar year 2026. Households in the middle would see a modest 0.6 percent gain. However, the top five percent of earners would experience a 3 percent increase in their after-tax-and-transfer income.

Moreover, the analysis concluded that more than 100 percent of the net fiscal benefit from these changes would go to households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This happens because lower-income groups would lose more in government benefits than they would gain from any tax cuts. At the same time, high-income households would enjoy significant tax reductions with little or no loss in benefits.

“These results indicate a shift in resources away from low-income tax units toward those with higher incomes,” the Budget Lab report states. “In particular, making the TCJA provisions permanent for high earners while reducing spending on SNAP and Medicaid leads to a regressive overall effect.” The report notes that policymakers have floated a range of options to reduce SNAP and Medicaid outlays, such as lowering per-beneficiary benefits or tightening eligibility rules. While the Budget Lab did not assess each proposal individually, the modeling assumes legislation consistent with the resolution’s instructions. “The burden of deficit reduction would fall largely on those least able to bear it,” the report concluded.

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

A Threat to Pre-emptive Pardons

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process.

Published

2 days ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

President Trump is working to undo the traditional presidential pardon powers by questioning the Biden administration’s pre-emptive pardons issued just days before January 20, 2025. President Trump is seeking retribution against the January 6th House Select Committee. The Trump Justice Department has been tasked to find loopholes to overturn the pardons that could lead to legal battles for the Republican and Democratic nine-member committee. Legal scholars and those closely familiar with the pardon process worked with the Biden administration to ensure the preemptive pardons would stand against any retaliatory knocks from the incoming Trump administration. A source close to the Biden administration’s pardons said, in January 2025, “I think pardons are all valid. The power is unreviewable by the courts.”

However, today that same source had a different statement on the nuances of the new Trump pardon attack. That attack places questions about Biden’s use of an autopen for the pardons. The Trump argument is that Biden did not know who was pardoned as he did not sign the documents. Instead, the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The same source close to the pardon issue said this week, “unless he [Trump] can prove Biden didn’t know what was being done in his name. All of this is in uncharted territory. “ Meanwhile, an autopen is used to make automatic or remote signatures. It has been used for decades by public figures and celebrities.

Months before the Biden pardon announcement, those in the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, staff, and the Justice Department were conferring tirelessly around the clock on who to pardon and how. The concern for the preemptive pardons was how to make them irrevocable in an unprecedented process. At one point in the lead-up to the preemptive pardon releases, it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process. President Trump began the threat of an investigation for the January 6th Select Committee during the Hill proceedings. Trump has threatened members with investigation or jail.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Reaction to The Education EO

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking a higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college.

Published

2 days ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

There are plenty of negative reactions to President Donald Trump’s latest Executive Order abolishing the Department of Education. As Democrats call yesterday’s action performative, it would take an act of Congress for the Education Department to close permanently. “This blatantly unconstitutional executive order is just another piece of evidence that Trump has absolutely no respect for the Constitution,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. “By dismantling ED, President Trump is implementing his own philosophy on education, which can be summed up in his own words, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ I am adamantly opposed to this reckless action, said Rep. Bobby Scott who is the most senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Morgan State University President Dr. David Wilson chimed in saying “I’m deeply concerned about efforts to shift federal oversight in education back to the states, particularly regarding equity, justice, and fairness. History has shown us what happens when states are left unchecked—Black and poor children are too often denied access to the high-quality education they deserve. In 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed a law creating the Department of Education. Arne Duncan, former Obama Education Secretary, reminds us that both Democratic and Republican presidents have kept education a non-political issue until now. However, Duncan stressed Republican presidents have contributed greatly to moving education forward in this country.

During a CNN interview this week Duncan said during the Civil War President Abraham “Lincoln created the land grant system” for colleges like Tennessee State University. “President Ford brought in IDEA.” And “Nixon signed Pell Grants into law.” In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush which increased federal oversight of schools through standardized testing. Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college. Wilson details, “that 40 percent of all college students rely on Pell Grants and student loans.”

Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) says this Trump action “impacts students pursuing higher education and threatens 26 million students across the country, taking billions away from their educational futures. Meanwhile, During the president’s speech in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Trump criticized Baltimore City, and its math test scores with critical words. Governor West Moore, who is opposed to the EO action, said about dismantling the Department of Education, “Leadership means lifting people up, not punching them down.”