The SAT Sucks... And We've Finally Taken Notice

SAT Group Can Do Better, Says Report It Commissioned

Remedies Are Urged for SAT Scoring

The College Board should acquire better scanning software, increase training for test center personnel and make other improvements in its procedures to help prevent errors in scoring SAT exams, according to a report released yesterday.

Standardized testing is useful if it is used properly. The SAT is not an adequate tool for predicting success in college. It is nothing more than an academic achievement test that measures the level of education is specific academic areas. It would be more useful as a diagnostic tool for identifying weak areas of an individual's education. But we have become test happy under the banner of the Christian Right and the ultra-conservatives that believe the only way to ascertain the effectiveness of a curriculum is to achieve an overwhelming success rate on standardized tests. Not too long ago many colleges were moving away from using the SAT and other standardized testing as part of the college entrance evaluation process. Today, we find that the new version of the SAT has far too many flaws.

The report, by the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton, was commissioned by the board after more than 5,000 SAT exams were incorrectly scored last October, some by as many as 450 points out of a possible 2,400 points. The College Board owns and manages the SAT.

But critics of the College Board questioned the independence of Booz Allen, which received $5.2 million in consulting fees from the board in the year ending June 30, 2005, according to a board filing with the Internal Revenue Service.

The other conflict of interest is that the College Board makes its money by promoting the SAT as a tool for evaluating college applicants... and despite the CB's marketing approach, the test has never done the job.