For millions of high school Juniors and Seniors, Tuesday morning was filled with efforts to woo colleges and universities through the achievement of one of the most heavily-weighted pieces of their academic portfolio. Yes, it was ACT day. Close your workbooks, follow directions or else your answer document will be eaten.
As a high school teacher responsible for the instruction of juniors, I had the duty to proctor one such section of the test for 18 of my regular students. I followed all of the instructions perfectly; students were seated in alphabetical order, no student head was within 3 feet of another head, the desk dimensions fit the square-inch requirements. Unfortunately, I did see fit to break with the scripted instructions on a couple of occasions:
“… are there any questions?”
If there are no questions, then read:
“Your answer sheets…”
Students had questions, but the script I had to read word-for-word did not allow for that option. But I digress.
The Industry of Education
Generally speaking, I have several problems with this type of self-serving “industry of education.” One of the first things that students learn in ACT prep courses is that ACT doesn’t actually stand for anything – it’s simply the name of the tax-exempt group that generates and propagates the test. Once I learned this, I started wondering about connections that might exist between ACT, Inc. and, say, Texas Instruments – maker of the most widely used calculators (80% of the market share) that ACT allows for their tests. Remember your old TI-83 or 84 from over a decade ago? They’re still over $100. Compare this to modern technology as another writer did:
Within sight of the rack was the store’s Apple display, ornamented with iPads, MacBooks and iPod Touches. The iPod Touch is now retailing for $200, or $62 more than the TI-84. The TI-84 has a 15MHz processor, 1.5MB of storage space, a 96×64 monochrome screen, and no built-in battery. The iPod Touch has a 960×640 full-color touchscreen, an 800MHz processor, 8GB minimum storage, Wi-Fi, two cameras, a speaker and a full mobile operating system with hundreds of thousands of apps. The only ways in which these devices are even in the same category are that they both use electricity and they can both do math; the App Store has plenty of fully capable graphing calculator apps available for a few bucks, tops.
Could an iPad or similar device be allowed for use on such tests as the SAT or ACT? I think most people would agree that the powerful and hugely versatile device would cause some cheating issues, but that is just another problem that would eventually find a solution. What I don’t think is reasonable is the belief that obsolete technology is valuable because of what it can’t do.
Scour the internet and you can find support and dissent for graphing calculators, each as ridiculous as the other; ranging from profanity-laced diatribes about expense to TI-worshipers declaring that the 84 series is simply perfect for its purpose and there is no need for further development. In case you’re wondering, I’m inclined to side with the inane profanity before accepting that education technology peaked in the 1990′s.
Based on the extremely dated technology, I would guess that the TI-83/84 series calculators cost less than $10 to actually manufacture and ship, which brings a bit of clarity to Texas Instrument’s SEC filings:
…TI groups the revenue from its machines under “Other” along with projectors and licensing agreements. In the last quarter [of 2011], the company only generated $716 million in revenue from the segment, but its operating profit was a healthy $236 million. That’s a 33 percent margin, better than any other business that TI has.
Another major issue with the industry of education is that it perpetuates itself. Like with any test, the ACT is one with rules and methods, but because of the disproportionate weight these huge standardized tests take, secondary elements to the industry, like The Princeton Review, have sprung up and only further the existence of their origin. It’s these test-prep courses that are built, not singularly on developing academic ability, but exploiting the rules and methods used to create the ACT and SAT. This means that what the standardized tests measure is not only intellectual ability, but also the ability to take the test itself. The result is that a student who is actually more intelligent but without ACT training might score lower than a less intelligent student who spent their time learning tips and tricks of the ACT rather than completing their math homework. Once the standardized test no longer tests academic ability, the only service it provides is to itself and the companies like TI and The Princeton Review that profit from it.
Academic Objectification
During a brief break in the test, I overhead a female student mention to a classmate that she hadn’t eaten breakfast. The classmate began waxing merrily about the benefits of the orange juice he drank earlier and how he had the energy to take the 3+ hour test; she was concerned that her hunger would affect her ability to focus. Intrigued, I asked her why she didn’t bother to eat breakfast. “Because I came to school early to help another student with their homework – I’m in pre-cal and he’s in Algebra II.”
What part of this student’s career is a college or university going to see? Which do you think they would rather see? Pope John Paul II is famously quoted as saying, “The problem with pornography is not that it shows too much of the person, but too little.” Likewise, a college would probably be very interested in a student who not only excels in her own classes, but makes sacrifices to better those around her – this is the fullness of her academic profile. Unfortunately, the over-emphasis placed on the ACT and SAT obscure who the student actually is and reduces them to a single quality – their score.
Indeed, a growing number of institutes of higher learning are veering away from requiring standardized tests and are becoming “test-optional,” which has been the subject of a few studies like this one from William Hiss, former dean of admissions for Bates College:
“My hope is that this study will be a first step in examining what happens when you admit tens of thousands of students without looking at their SAT scores,” Hiss says. “And the answer is, if they have good high school grades, they’re almost certainly going to be fine.”
Hiss’s study, “Defining Promise: Optional Standardized Testing Policies in American College and University Admissions,” examined data from nearly three-dozen “test-optional” U.S. schools, ranging from small liberal arts schools to large public universities, over several years.
This seems like a rather fortunate turn; attempting to gain a more holistic view of the student’s academic life and putting less emphasis on how they performed on a single test on the morning of 18 March 2014 after skipping breakfast to help a classmate.
ACT, Inc. isn’t unaware of these winds of change and they are adjusting their sails accordingly. A representative in the article above tried to emphasize that “More information is always better,” but what else is he going to say – “You’re right. Let’s close up shop”? Rather, in the face of a more flexible, higher-education admissions reality, ACT, inc. is the one left struggling to find the right answer.