Back to the Basics: In Defense of Achievement (and Achievement Tests) in College Admissions

CSHE > News > Back to the Basics: In Defense of Achievement (and Achievement Tests) in College Admissions

July 2, 2008

In a new article, “Back to the Basics: In Defense of Achievement (and Achievement Tests) in College Admissions,” CSHE researcher Saul Geiser argues that achievement tests, which measure students’ knowledge of college-preparatory subjects, are demonstrably superior to tests of general reasoning ability, such as the SAT, as a criterion for college admissions. Geiser was formerly director of admissions research for the University of California system.

Summarizing a decade of UC research, Geiser presents compelling evidence that the SAT is in fact a relatively poor predictor of success in college. Even the “New SAT,” introduced by the College Board in 2005 to more closely approximate an achievement test, is no better at predicting college outcomes than the old SAT.

Achievement tests, on the other hand, consistently outperform SAT-type tests in identifying students likely to benefit from college, according to studies conducted by Geiser and his colleagues from 1996-2007. Achievement tests tap students’ knowledge of particular subjects like biology or US history.

This research is particularly timely because this month the UC regents will be asked to consider a faculty proposal to drop achievement tests as a requirement for admission to the UC system and to require only the SAT.

If approved, the proposal will set a markedly different direction from UC policies instituted over the past decade. After Californians voted to end affirmative action in 1996, the UC system undertook a sweeping review of its admissions criteria to ensure that they complied with the law while also ensuring fairness to minority applicants and those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In studies of almost 125,000 students entering UC between 1996 and 2001, Geiser and his colleagues found that high-school grades were consistently the best predictor of college performance. As an admissions criterion, moreover, high-school GPA had much less of an adverse impact than the SAT on admission of poor and minority applicants.

After high-school grades, achievement tests were the next-best predictor of student outcomes, including outcomes for poor and minority students. Of all tests, the Advanced Placement exams proved the strongest predictor, followed by the SAT II achievement tests (now officially renamed the SAT Subject Tests). The SAT verbal and mathematical “reasoning” tests were the weakest predictors and had the most adverse effect on admission of poor and minority applicants

These findings prompted a number of changes in UC admissions policy. In 1998, BOARS (Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools), the faculty committee responsible for recommending changes in admissions policy, substantially reduced the weight given to SAT scores, while increasing the weight for high-school grades and achievement-test scores in the statewide eligibility index that UC uses to determine the top 12.5% of California high-school graduates.

In 2001, UC adopted a new policy extending eligibility for admission to the top four percent of graduates from each California high school, based on their GPA in college-preparatory subjects. The effect of this change, too, was to diminish the emphasis on the SAT.

In 2002 BOARS approved what may be the first comprehensive policy adopted by any major US university on the use of standardized tests in college admissions. That policy came down strongly in favor of achievement tests and against tests of general reasoning like the SAT.

In response to UC, in 2005 the College Board introduced several changes in the SAT intended to position it as more of an achievement test. The changes included adding a writing sample, dropping verbal analogies, and phasing in more math content. But in a just-released study of 110 colleges and universities across the US, College Board researchers found that the New SAT is no more effective in predicting college outcomes than the old SAT.

As Geiser comments, “The New SAT is a test at war with itself. Although it has added some features associated with achievement testing, its heritage as a test of general reasoning ability still predominates, and it is an open question whether future iterations of the test will evolve more fully into a curriculum-based assessment.”

“College admissions may never be a perfectly fair and rational process, but it can be fairer and more rational than it is today if we judge students on what really matters – knowledge of college-preparatory subjects, as demonstrated by high-school grades and performance on achievement tests.”

Geiser’s paper was commissioned for the inaugural conference of the Center for Enrollment Research, Policy and Practice to be held at the University of Southern California in August.

For access to the article and the CSHE website, please visit: http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?s=1

CONTACT:
Saul Geiser: sgeiser@berkeley.edu

More information