Apodaca: It’s way past time for SAT to die

Students registered for the SAT this coming fall will have the odd distinction of being among the last to take the current version of the college admissions test. The College Board, the testing behemoth behind the SAT, is rolling out its revamped test in Spring 2016.

The new test was developed with much attendant publicity under the leadership of David Coleman, who became president of the College Board less than three years ago. Among the changes: The old 1,600-point scoring system will return, with an optional essay scored separately, and the quarter-point deduction for wrong answers will be gone.

The reading and writing sections will be more “evidence-based,” meaning that students will be asked to interpret passages and words by examining their context, and to support their answers. The math section also purportedly focuses more on problem-solving and analytical skills that have real-world applications.

If some of the jargon accompanying the revised SAT sounds reminiscent of the new Common Core educational standards, consider that Coleman, an Ivy League-educated former Rhodes Scholar, was instrumental in shaping the Common Core through a nonprofit education policy organization he founded.

Credit Coleman for trying mightily to make the SAT more relevant, fair and grounded in classroom knowledge. His efforts will even prompt some of the legions of SAT critics to guardedly counsel giving the reboot a chance.

But no matter how many times the SAT is revised — and it’s been changed many times before — it has always been and will remain a conceptually flawed, irredeemably dreadful means of screening college applicants.

It’s long past time for the SAT to die.

I realize this is no more than wishful thinking, even though the test is universally hated and despite the fact that the rival ACT — which has its own problems but for now we’ll focus on the SAT — has increasingly taken a bigger share of the college-admissions testing market. Despised though it is, the College Board remains a powerful institution with tentacles wrapped around the entire educational establishment. The concept of using either the SAT or the ACT as a key means of judging applicants is so deeply ingrained in the college admissions process that it seems unthinkable to do things any differently.

Even so, radical change in college admissions is just what we need and the SAT is a really good place to start.

The origins of the SAT date back to the early 20th century, and over the decades as it has been reworked and re-rationalized many times. It has at various points been touted as a means of determining inherent intelligence, or “aptitude;” a reflection of student learning, or a way to predict future academic success. All such claims have been roundly disproved.

When the modern test-prep industry emerged, for example, it was clearly demonstrated that coaching could lead to significant gains in test scores, debunking previous assertions that the SAT measured innate intelligence that no amount of study and practice could alter. It also revealed the bias toward affluent students who could afford expensive private tutoring.

The SAT as a predictor of college success is another discredited notion. Numerous well-documented studies have shown that high school grades alone are the most accurate indicator of future performance. SAT and ACT results, despite their importance in college admissions decisions, don’t signal later achievement.

Nonetheless, our slavish devotion to these tests persists. Many admissions officials routinely express resentment of the SAT and ACT, and a small number of audacious colleges have gone so far as to make them optional. But the stranglehold such tests maintain over admissions continues in large part, many suspect, because the vast majority of colleges are willing participants in this skewed system.

It’s not hard to guess why colleges acquiesce. Most claim to use a “holistic” approach to college admissions, but there’s no escaping the fact that the SAT and ACT offer a quick and easy screening tool. One former Ivy League admissions reviewer, for example, told a television interviewer that it was merely “human nature” to submit to the temptation to favor test scores over other factors such as essays after long hours of reviewing applications.

But there’s a more troubling reason, many believe. Colleges have a clear interest in perpetuating this faulty system because their rankings are based in part on SAT and ACT scores of admitted students, and they use the scores to market themselves to prospective students. The more applications received, the lower the admissions rate, and the more elite and selective they appear. It’s a cynical game of manipulation that in no way reflects student achievement or potential or enhances education.

Granted, the new SAT might contain some welcome changes, and the College Board’s enlistment of the online Khan Academy to provide free test preparation will help students who can’t afford tutoring.

But none of this will be enough to overcome the fact that no one test should wield such power over our children’s futures. Our kids are tested nonstop throughout their school years, giving colleges more than enough ways to evaluate academic performance if they’re willing to take the trouble. More importantly, the endless hours that students spend preparing for the SAT and ACT detract significantly from vastly more important and meaningful studies and activities.

Call me a heretic, but the SAT doesn’t need another revision. It needs to bite the dust.

PATRICE APODACA is a former Newport-Mesa public school parent and former Los Angeles Times staff writer. She lives in Newport Beach.